Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RYDE CORPORATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Nuclear Weapons and Bases

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about recent discussions between representatives of the British, French and American Governments on nuclear weapons and bases.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): There have been no such discussions.

Mr. Allaun: What contribution is Britain making under the Non-Proliferation Treaty towards slowing down the nuclear arms race? Would it not help the SALT talks if, instead of trying to up-date the Polaris missiles, we phased out the missiles and their bases on the west coast of Scotland?

Mr. Gilmour: No, I do not think so at all. We have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the SALT talks are between Russia and the United States—we are not involved. It has not been the policy of either the present Government or our predecessors to give up our nuclear bombs.

Mr. Peart: I know that we had this argument during the defence debate, but we should like soon to know whether we are to have Poseidon. Reports have

appeared in the Press which may be unfounded, but we should like to know, and my hon. Friend is right to press the matter in that sense.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was pressing it in that sense. I know the right hon. Gentleman's view on this and he knows the Government's view. We have said several times that we are not at the point of decision on Poseidon.

Meteorological Office

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the Meteorological Office.

The Under-secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): The Meteorological Office provides meteorological services for the community at large. In meeting these requirements, it is its policy to provide general forecasts and weather information for broadcast on radio and television, for publication in the Press and for use by the Post Office in its automatic telephone weather service. It supplements these with special forecasts or information designed to meet the needs of particular interests.

Mr. Jones: Why does the Meteorological Office seem to deny the existence of Wales, for instance, in its forecasts on the tapes in this House? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Meteorological Office's denial of the existence of Wales is to some extent the reason for such bad forecasting? Is there not a general strategic implication also? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members representing constituencies in the Principality have no idea of the weather they are going home to at weekends?

Mr. Blaker: I will not comment on the last part of that supplementary question, nor can I accept responsibility for what appears on the tapes in the House. A great deal of work is done by the Meteorological Office on Wales and a great deal is broadcast both on the Radio 4 Wales programmes and on BBC and Harlech Television.

Overseas Manoeuvres (Accidents)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will institute a review of procedures for investigating accidents occurring while British troops serving abroad are on manoeuvres.

Mr. Blaker: The present procedures which apply to accidents worldwide and irrespective of the circumstances generally operate satisfactorily, and I see no need to review them.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked him a similar Question in November he said that these procedures were
made with a care and consideration which is much appreciated by relatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 608.]
Does he not realise that the late son of my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, of Keresley, near Coventry, was killed on manoeuvres on 24th September last year and that his parents have not been told exactly what happened to him? Is not this disgusting and disgraceful? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Blaker: The Question to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I answered earlier related to a different aspect of this tragic case. I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in it. The facts are that the late Signalman Johnson's commanding officer wrote to Mr. Johnson giving the circumstances of the accident on the day it occurred. I have not been able to provide further information because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a court-martial and it is not possible to give information which will be raised in a court-martial pending the result of the proceedings.

Mr. Huckfield: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the German, Italian and British Governments are each

up to date on their schedule of payments for work in progress on the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The programme is funded by quarterly payments in advance. Contributions are currently up to date except for small sums due from each Government in respect of the current period.

Mr. Warren: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House what burdens of extra research and development costs will now fall upon the British taxpayer because the German requirement for the aircraft has dropped from the originally envisaged 800 to 322?

Mr. Gilmour: As I have told my hon. Friend before, the adjustment of work allotted to each country can be varied and is varied at each phase of development and, therefore, any variation in numbers is taken into account at that stage.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Minister in a position to assist us further? Is the project on schedule as regards the date of delivery? Do we expect to see the aeroplane by about 1976? Can he say what arrangements have been made for the joint training of pilots?

Mr. Gilmour: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the aircraft is due to come into service in the late 1970s. I should not like to be pinned down to any exact date. It is more or less on schedule as of now. There will be some joint training between the three countries, but I cannot expand on detailed arrangements at present.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my hon. Friend of the commitment made to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State that this aeroplane is fundamental to the reorganisation plans of the Royal Air Force? Can my hon. Friend say precisely when the first prototype is likely to fly and whether there has been any change in the operational requirement for the aeroplane for the three parties which are to purchase it?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about what was said yesterday. I remember it very well. There has been little change in the operational requirements for this aeroplane.

Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence what detailed preparations he is making for balanced force reductions leading to disarmament; and whether cuts will be imposed on all three Services.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Exploratory talks about mutual and balanced force reductions in Central Europe are currently under way in Vienna. If, as we hope, these talks have a satisfactory outcome, negotiations proper could start in the autumn. It is far too early to seek to predict what might be the conclusions of such negotiations.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not proper that, in considering that this country is going into these negotiations, the hon. Gentleman should contemplate the possibility of their having a successful outcome? If so, would it not be a good idea to prepare in advance for that possibility by planning what sort of reductions and what prospects there are? Would it not be possible in the negotiations to put forward suggestions about the nature of the reductions contemplated by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman knows that we hope that these negotiations will be successful. If the security of Western Europe can be preserved with a lower level of armed forces on each side, we shall be delighted. At this stage any assessment of such an agreement is speculative and based on all sorts of assumptions which are extremely variable.

Dr. Glyn: While I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, I hope he will realise that what is really important in any of these talks is to look for mutual inspection of the two sides. Will my hon. Friend bear this need in mind when the talks take place?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course we shall. It is the essence of these talks that the reductions should be mutual.

Mr. Leadbitter: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the talks have now run into difficulties concerning Hungary. Is he aware, further, of the persistence of the Nixon doctrine and, therefore, that the position of Her

Majesty's Government should be made clear about what our reaction would be in the event of the Nixon doctrine being applied fully, concerning the effect of the reduction of American interests in Europe and the effect of reductions arising out of the talks in terms of our contribution? In other words, will the Government make it quite clear that for the defence of Europe we shall pay, with our allies, amounts not dissimilar from those of our allies and that we shall have an arrangement which does not burden the nation?

Mr. Gilmour: I am not sure that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question follows from the first part. As regards the Nixon doctrine, President Nixon has said quite clearly that so long as Europe maintains and improves its forces America will maintain and improve hers.

Mr. Critchley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real object of the MBFR talks in Vienna is the advancement of Western security?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course. I agree with that strongly.

Departmental Property (West Middlesex)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will institute a review of all property used by his Department in the West Middlesex area.

Mr. Blaker: No, Sir. We keep all our property requirements under continuous review.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with great dismay by the London borough of Ealing which is desperately in need of land? Is he prepared to consider again a tract of land at Northolt in the London borough of Ealing which is held by his Department for no apparent or sensible use? Is he aware also that there are buildings in Perivale which have been empty for 12 months? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply and meet representatives of the London borough of Ealing to discuss the possibility of putting these lands and premises to a more sensible use?

Mr. Blaker: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about any property, I shall gladly look at it. I


assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not hold on to land unnecessarily. I remind him that 216 acres of land at Hounslow Heath have been available to the local authority since 1963 and that since 1966 1,280 acres have been sold to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs mainly for housing.

West Germany

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will initiate discussions with the West German Government about the level of British forces in West Germany, with a view to reducing the £3,365 million defence programme, as set out in Command Paper No. 5231.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Our forces are deployed in Germany under the Brussels Treaty commitment and they are a vital part of our contribution to the military capability of the North Atlantic Alliance. It is alliance policy to maintain and improve this capability until reciprocal East/West agreement allows us to reduce it in safety.

Mr. Hughes: According to Annex A of the Defence White Paper, the initial incidence of costs to our balance of payments is £209 million for keeping troops in Germany. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the Federal Government of Germany should now accept full financial responsibility for the upkeep of these troops and that, if they are not prepared to do so, serious consideration should be given to their withdrawal bearing in mind especially that it is now 28 years since the end of the Second World War?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fundamental fact that our troops are in Germany not merely to help Germany but to protect the whole of Europe, including ourselves. The hon. Gentleman is right about the foreign exchange costs, and he knows that this is a problem which also exercised the Labour Government. But it is not possible to strike a balance between budgetary payments made under the offset agreement and the foreign exchange costs that we incur. We made an agreement in 1971 which is probably the best one that we have yet made.

Mr. Goodhart: As the recent revaluation of the German mark has clearly increased the direct cost of BAOR by £20

million since the beginning of this year, can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a renegotiation of the offset agreement?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, there are a great many calculations necessary throughout the defence budget concerning the revaluation. We have not yet completed those calculations, so it is too early to make an announcement.

Mr. Paget: As British troops in Germany, in the stations provided for them by the West German Government, are not in a position to make any contribution to the defence of Europe since their northern flank is totally exposed and indefensible, would not they be more useful at home?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. and learned Gentleman's strategic doctrines are deeply eccentric and, if I may say so, utterly obsolete.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman referred to the negotiations and discussions. When will the Government be in a position to make an announcement about them?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not know. It will not be for some time.

Project Costs

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the latest cost estimates for the through-deck cruiser programme, the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme and the Sea Wolf programme, respectively.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: It is not normal practice to divulge cost estimates of individual defence projects under development.

Mr. Dalyell: Could I be allowed to have a go at the answer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should be seeking information, not giving it.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not the reality that the cruisers, three of them, will cost about £75 million apiece, that the MRCA—200, I think—is not likely to be less than £400 million and that Sea Wolf itself may be over £250 million? With that order of figures, is it seriously considered wise to allow them to mature at the same


time? Should not at least one of the projects be cut now?

Mr. Gilmour: Those are the hon. Gentleman's figures, not mine. [Interruption.] His right hon. Friend more or less admitted yesterday that we are following the same practice as the Labour Government. We keep expenditure on major projects under review. There is a long way to go before full development on these projects is complete. If there is any difficulty, there is opportunity for rephasing.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least the first two projects are essential for the respective Services which will receive them? Is it not irresponsible of the Opposition to fail to suggest positive ways of cutting manpower costs, which are the highest burden on the defence budget, whereas the Government have put forward proposals for the rationalisation of manpower in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Gilmour: I should not like to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. All three items of equipment are very important.

Mr. Judd: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the uncertainty about the future of the through-deck cruiser will inevitably have an adverse effect on morale in the Fleet Air Arm? Does he agree that an urgent and clear decision about the future is necessary?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the sooner a decision is made the better. As was said in the defence debate, however, negotiations with Messrs. Vickers about the contract for the cruiser are still continuing.

France

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange a meeting with the French Defence Minister.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: My right hon. and noble Friend hopes to continue his regular programme of meetings with his French counterpart.

Mr. Barnes: Did not M. Debré make it clear recently that if Britain is to spend hundreds of millions of pounds acquiring the American Poseidon missiles this will

rule out Anglo-French nuclear co-operation? Now that Britain is in the Community, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the wisdom of extending further our special nuclear relationship with America ought seriously to be questioned?

Mr. Gilmour: My right hon. and noble Friend has several times said that any discussions with the French Government about nuclear co-operation have so far been to agree that such co-operation is in the long term. The hon. Gentleman has asked the second part of his question before. I can only reply that this Government, like the Labour Government, have every intention of maintaining the nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the Minister will resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes). I hope he will not mind my saying this. We would reject the concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. We argued that this would be bad for relations in Europe and Western Germany. We also recognise the importance of the United States in this matter, and we want friendly allies.

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly resist the blandishments of his hon. Friend. However, I am not sure that I shall resist the blandishments to which he referred.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has not the French deterrent reached a point where it is permissible under United States law for American information to go to the French? Therefore, has not at least one obstacle to an Anglo-French shared deterrent been removed? Would not this to some extent answer some of the objections to proliferation which we hear from the Opposition?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that the proliferation arguments apply. Whether the Americans decide to release nuclear information to the French is entirely a matter for them, not for us.

United States Forces (Offset Costs)

Mr. Critchley: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will hold talks with the United Kingdom's European NATO allies with a view to setting up a multilateral fund to meet the offset


costs of the United States forces in Europe.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I do not think it would be appropriate for Britain to take an initiative of this sort.

Mr. Critchley: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an initiative were to arise from one of our European NATO allies it would be worthy of support by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Gilmour: It would depend very much on what the initiative was. As I said earlier, we are all agreed that it is important not to upset the Nixon doctrine: that provided Europe improves and maintains its forces, America will do the same. I think that America realises the importance of Europe maintaining its forces.

Mr. John Morris: Since, as I understand it, the harmonisation of trade is one of the objects or aims of our membership of the EEC, may I ask whether the long-term effect on this country of maintaining an unequal burden of defence expenditure, compared with our European allies, will distort our ability to trade competitively?

Mr. Gilmour: That is the kind of argument that I expected the right hon. Gentleman to put forward in the defence debate, but he did not. I do not think that it arises even remotely from the Question.

Edinburgh Airport

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of State for Defence in what way the approach to the proposed new runway at Edinburgh airport will affect the operations at Headquarters, Scottish Command; whether this will incur any removal costs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Blaker: The possible effects on Ministry of Defence interests of the decision by my right hon. Friend regarding the proposed new runway are under detailed study. It is, however, too early to say what the results of this examination are likely to be.

Mr. Steel: When will that study be completed? In the meantime, may I ask whether there is equipment at the headquarters of Scottish Command which

will be affected by the passing of jets overhead?

Mr. Blaker: We expect the study to be completed in a few weeks. We must await the results of the study before being in a position to answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in a useful manner.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In support of the civil authorities the Army is continuing to combat terrorism and to control violence, from whatever quarter they may arise.

Mr. Duffy: The Minister has reminded the House once more of the tension and the exacting rôle of the British soldier in Northern Ireland, perhaps never more so than at this moment. Would he also remind the House of the leave arrangements for non-garrison troops in Northern Ireland and say whether he is in a position favourably to review them?

Mr. Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about force levels?

Mr. Duffy: No. Leave arrangements for non-garrison troops.

Mr. Gilmour: We have looked at this matter. The difficulty is that the troops who are there on four-months' duty are under considerable pressure, yet it is important to keep a high percentage of a unit on duty at the same time or additional units would be necessary. I cannot be any more helpful than that.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great debt of gratitude owed by the people of Northern Ireland to the brave rôle of British soldiers there? Will he confirm that the Government intend, as soon as practicable, to transfer the duties being performed by the Army to the police in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I am grateful for what he has said. It has always been the object of both the Army and the Government that the enforcement of law


and order should be taken over by the civil authorities as soon as possible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that, in order that the Army might carry out its duties, the living standards of soldiers should be the best possible? Is he satisfied that these men, who are serving with courage and sacrifice, have proper living standards? Will he inform the House what he has in mind to help forward the making available of facilities for these men?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are not satisfied with the living conditions of our troops in Northern Ireland. We have spent a lot of money and done a great deal to improve them, and this is a continuing process.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many security incidents have there been in the Duncairn Gardens area of Belfast in each of the last 12 months; and what steps he proposes to improve security arrangements in the district.

Mr. Blaker: It would require disproportionate effort to provide figures for each of the last 12 months, but I have examined the situation in the area. Since the beginning of this year there have been 13 shooting incidents, one explosion and three riots in the immediate vicinity of Duncairn Gardens, and there have been a considerable number of shooting incidents in Edlingham and Lepper Streets.
The security forces have taken and will continue to take all practicable steps to combat violence in this and adjacent areas.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he recognise that the situation in this area of Belfast is deteriorating with the attacks on individuals and property, the attacks on churches and church congregations and recently, on Friday night, the tragic murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that special attention will be paid by the security authorities to this area to deal with the situation?

Mr. Blaker: I fully recognise the justifiable concern of my hon. Friend for this area. I can assure him that the repre-

sentations which have been made to my right hon. Friend by deputations, of which he has formed part, in recent days are being carefully considered, as is the deployment of troops in the area.

Mr. Wiggin: Would it not make the task of the security forces considerably easier, and particularly in Belfast, if Her Majesty's Government were to introduce a curfew?

Mr. Blaker: That, I think, is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain church congregations in Duncairn Gardens are seriously perturbed as it is almost impossible for them to hold their Sunday evening services? Can he assure the House that the Army will be on the ground to give them at least the assurance of their military presence in the area, especially as these people come and go to their church services on Sunday evening?

Mr. Blaker: I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman will be noted. Indeed, I shall see that they are. The detailed deployment of the forces from time to time must be a matter for the GOC.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are his plans for the progressive replacement of Army units by local forces in support of the civil powers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Blaker: None at present, Sir, though, as my hon. Friend said earlier, it has always been the intention that the duties of the Army would be taken over by the civil authorities as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the size of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland is kept under constant review to ensure that there are adequate numbers in the Province.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Despite the splendid volunteer services in Northern Ireland, is not the numerical involvement of the population in its own defence entirely inadequate? When will the Government get on with placing Regular companies in UDR battalions, particularly near the border?

Mr. Blaker: With regard to the level of the volunteer activities in Northern Ireland, we would welcome more volunteers


for the UDR. My hon. Friend will be aware that I dealt with full-time companies in my speech last Thursday. Among other things, the creation of full-time companies would not lead to any reduction in Regular force levels.

Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, and instruct the GOC in Northern Ireland to bear in mind, the importance of building up the numbers, morale and degree of involvement of the members of the RUC in helping to deal with the disturbances in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Blaker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wiggin: Is it possible for the Army to enlist the services of the TAVR units in Ulster? If that is not possible under the emergency regulations, will my hon. Friend seek to introduce legislation to make it possible?

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend will recall that I dealt with this matter also in my speech on Thursday. I pointed out that the rôle of the TAVR is principally to act as a reserve for the Regular Army as a whole but that members of the TAVR in Northern Ireland may join the UDR with reserved rights if they want to transfer back to the TAVR.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strength and complement of the British Army forces in Northern Ireland; and how many soldiers are stationed there with an enlistment service of less than one year.

Mr. Blaker: The Regular force level in Northern Ireland at present totals 20 major units in the infantry rôle and six armoured reconnaissance squadrons, plus various minor supporting units. This force level amounts to about 17,500 troops.
It is not possible without disproportionate effort to determine how many soldiers there have completed less than one year's service.

Mr. Leadbitter: The latter part of the Minister's reply is of vital importance. The whole country is concerned about the use of very young soldiers in North-

ern Ireland. Apart from the question of the hon. Member for Chigwell Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the replacement of our forces by civil forces in Northern Ireland, does the Minister accept that there is now a need for the House to know the number of young soldiers involved in Northern Ireland, the extent of their welfare and the degree to which pressures and strains are placed upon-them? There are great difficulties for young soldiers who lack experience. Finally, the House should have an overall statement about the housing of our soldiers, their recreation and their leave.

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked a great many questions, some of which have been dealt with in the defence debate. Others will no doubt come up in the Army Estimates debate. If the hon. Gentleman is casting any doubt on the skill of our young soldiers in Northern Ireland, that is effectively set at rest by what has been said by Members on both sides of the House in the defence debate about their great skill. As regards the minimum age at which they are allowed to go there, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that until recently and for some years past it was the rule that they could go from the age of 17½. We have raised that to 18.

Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever he said on Thursday, there is a deep awareness in the country in general that there is a need to move from Regular forces in Northern Ireland to some form of civil action in that country, and that the sooner we do that the better?

Mr. Blaker: I am not quite clear of the implication of my hon. Friend's question. It is possible for those who wish to aid the preservation of security in Northern Ireland to enlist in the UDR or the RUC.

Fishery Protection (Northumberland)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the fishery protection vessels on the Northumberland coast following the decision taken on joining the EEC for a six-mile limit in the area from Coquet Island to Berwick and 12 miles in the rest of the Northumberland coastline.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): Two ships of the Fishery Protection Squadron, assisted by Service aircraft, have been regularly patrolling the Northumberland coast during the recent sprat season. No foreign infringements were reported or detected.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this underlines the necessity for reviewing the six-mile limit in the area of Northumberland specified in the Question? Does he agree that there is no necessity for an arbitrary arrangement which gives a six-mile limit to one part of the country's coastline and 12 miles to the other part? Will he urge his right hon. Friend who is responsible for this decision to review it as quickly as possible?

Mr. Buck: I shall pass on what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend. Regarding the existing situation, I was patrolling for a couple of days off the Northumberland coast in HMS "Brinton". It seems at present that Navy support is sufficient to deal with the regulations which exist.

Weapons Systems

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the possible purchase of the Lance and TOW weapon systems for the British Army.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We are carefully considering, with our European allies, the purchase of Lance as a successor to Honest John. We have no plans to purchase TOW.

Mr. Wall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As he will know, I have been pressing for this for the last seven years. Can he give the House an indication of how long the negotiations are likely to take? Can he say what weapon of the same calibre other than TOW is available for the British Forces?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's first question exactly, but I do not expect the negotiations to take very long. Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows we are developing Hawkswing.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my hon. Friend of the very great importance of helicopter-launched anti-tank missiles?

Their importance was found by the United States in the Kontum battle at the conclusion of the Vietnam war. Would it not be true to say that TOW, bought off the shelf, would be an extremely cost-effective weapon for this purpose and that some of our European allies are actively considering it?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of this sort of weapon. However, we evaluated TOW some years ago and came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements. This is why we have been proceeding with our development of Hawkswing.

Royal Navy Presentation Team (Lectures)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the subject matter of the lectures given by the Royal Navy presentation team had received his approval.

Mr. Buck: The subject matter was approved by my predecessor.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, but as the whole theme was the importance of the defence of our overseas trade routes, and as none of the Ministers' speeches in the recent defence debate referred to the matter, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will rectify that omission in tomorrow's debate?

Mr. Buck: I shall deal with this matter, with the leave of the House, tomorrow. My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to one of the main reasons— namely, the need to guard the trade routes —for having a powerful and balanced fleet which the Government and many hon. Members on the Opposition benches wish to have.

Mr. Judd: Will the Minister accept that reliable reports suggest that, while the work of this team has been stimulating, there is a thin dividing line between the presentation of information and the advocacy of certain policies which may be controversial? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to watch that carefully?

Mr. Buck: I shall watch the performance of the new team which will go into action. I have no doubt that it will live up to the high standards of the past team. The presentation for keeping the balance


was largely on the Navy, but interestingly enough it took place at the RAF Club.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the greatest contribution which the Navy could make to develop trade would be to place an order for the Harrier, so that Hawker Siddeley salesmen around the world would be able to say that the British Navy was now a customer?

Mr. Buck: I went up in the Harrier two weeks ago and was very impressed with it. We are hoping that the project definition studies will soon be finalised and that we can reach a decision about this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Could the Minister be a little clearer when he tells the House that the presentations were approved by his predecessors? Does this mean that they were rubber-stamped or do Ministers actually see these things? What does he mean by "approved"?

Mr. Buck: A draft is submitted and we look through it and say "That is fine". In this case, it appeared to be fine and it was approved. If, on the other hand, the draft submitted by the Navy—I would think this very unlikely—was not right in all particulars, we would attempt to correct it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

BDR Machines Ltd., Bristol

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the increase in unemployment in Bristol likely to be brought about by the closure of the factory of BDR Machines Limited and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): It is not possible to make an accurate estimate at this stage, but the general expansion in the economy should do much to reduce the unemployment effects of a closure, and I understand that the rundown is expected to take place over a period of some months.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Bristol firm is a pioneer in the automatic vending machine business and that until recently it was very

prosperous? Is he aware that the Vokes Group took it over, that that group in turn has been taken over by Tillings and that its assets have been stripped? Have employees in these circumstances no remedy at the hands of the Government but to submit to unemployment?

Mr. Smith: I understand that there have been consultations between the management and the unions involved and they are being resumed shortly. We are certainly anxious to help if we can by sending in a job team, but it would be wise for us to wait until those consultations have finished and terms have been worked out over possible redundancies.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that in this case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, 1,700 people in a highly successful firm have been made the victims of asset-stripping and that providing alternative work for them is no substitute for support by the Government for this firm by means of, or following, an inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he take a broader view of his responsibilities than his original reply suggested?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the question of an inquiry of that kind is not one for me. Our Department's concern is the provision of alternative employment for those who may be affected by redundancies. A number of local employers have already expressed interest with regard to the men who may be made redundant and we shall do all we can to assist them. Fortunately, the trend of unemployment in Bristol is improving and things are getting better there.

Picketing

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects the review on the law on picketing to be completed and its findings to be announced.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very much hopes to make a statement in the next two weeks.

Sir F. Bennett: Meanwhile, interim remarks by Ministers suggest a preference for concentrating on enforcement of the existing law rather than remedying it.


Could my hon. Friend give some indication on this matter? Would he care to give us some idea whether the disgracefully violent scenes that we saw with regard to the North Files dispute in the West Country last night show the need for reforming the law or for better enforcement?

Mr. Smith: 1 would not comment on the latter point. As my hon. Friend may know, seven men have been arrested in that case, so it is sub judice. On his first point, he must await my right hon. Friend's report. The major problem is not so much the adequacy of the law as its enforcement and the need to improve general understanding of it. We have been considering what more can be done in this respect. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend's statement will point the way.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman consider removing the causes of strikes? Would the Government agree to throw out the Industrial Relations Act? Would they also agree to approach the trade unions and the employers with voluntary measures by which they can settle the dispute which is now arising on wages, such as those of the ancillary workers in the hospitals?

Mr. Smith: Not on the latter point. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that there are many causes of strikes. If he examines its provisions carefully, he will find that the Industrial Relations Act, if properly applied and observed, can in fact militate against strikes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Family Allowances

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individual representations he has received concerning the payment of family allowances to mothers notwithstanding tax credits.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): In all about 1,100 representations have been received by my Department or by the Interdepartmental Tax-Credit Study Group advocating the continuation of payments to mothers.

Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern about this matter, notwithstanding the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor which suggested that the payments would apply only to existing family allowances? Is he aware that, in view of the need for an immediate increase in family allowances generally, that principle should be extended to any increase and that the Government should give an undertaking that at no time will they change the current system of giving the family allowance directly to the mother?

Mr. Dean: There is no reason for concern on this matter. The Chancellor made it absolutely clear in his Budget Statement that the Government will not adopt any solution which means that mothers in receipt of family allowances will suffer a loss of income through the introduction of tax credits. That is entirely clear.

JAPAN (TRADE)

Ql. Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his pubic speech in London on Anglo-Japanese trade on 5th March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did not make a public speech, Sir, but I had a useful meeting on that day with the Japanese mission which came to Britain at the Government's invitation to examine possibilities for promoting imparts from Britain to Japan.

Mr. Lamont: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the remarks attributed to him in the Press about the need for a liberalisation of Japan's trade are very welcome? Is it not the case, however, that if one wants to persuade Japan to take an internationalist view of this problem, it is very important that in all aspects of foreign affairs, whether in the United Nations or in international monetary negotiations, Japan should have, and has not always had, a role commensurate with her economic strength?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I would agree with my hon. Friend's thesis. Of course, Japan's position in international monetary arrangements is fully recognised. As for the United Nations, it is well known that the Japanese Government would like to have a permanent


seat on the Security Council. This is a matter for the United Nations; obviously there are other countries which must also be considered.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it the policy of the Government to seek to promote direct investment by Japan in this country? If so, what steps are they taking?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we welcome investment from abroad in many cases into this country, and this matter has been discussed on the various visits that Ministers have made to Japan. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went there last summer. I went in the autumn, and the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping are also going there. In addition we are going to have, in 1973, 16 trade missions to Japan, 15 store promotions and assisted participation by British industry in 10 Japanese trade fairs. I am glad to say that there will be a number of inward missions from the Japanese here. In each of these ways we will make the impact that we welcome Japanese investment here.

EQUAL PAY

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Employment and Social Services in securing equal remuneration for women, including equality of pension rights.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman must be easily satisfied. Is he aware that when his party was in opposition it took the line that the Equal Pay Act that I introduced was of no value unless it was underpinned by equal pension rights for women in employers' pension schemes? Is he also aware that the Social Security Bill now in Standing Committee does not even give women equal rights with men to belong to employers' pension schemes? What will he do to stop this inconsistency between what his party says in opposition and what it does in Government?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that this has been discussed in detail

in Standing Committee, but there is no inconsistency. As the right hon. Lady knows, the standards for men and women under the Bill are actuarially equivalent. I do not see how there can, therefore, be discrimination in this respect and I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that.

Mrs Castle: No, I will not.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the Social Security Bill becomes law, for the first time under any Government there will be a major move forward towards a situation in which employers will come close to being obliged to include women in pension schemes, whereas up to now women have largely been overlooked? Would he also agree that to raise the benefits for women under the Bill to the equivalents of those for men would require an extra 43 per cent. on the contribution? Is it not incumbent on the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to say from where that additional contribution would come?

The Prime Minister: On the latter part of the question, it is true that if one were to change the balance of benefits men would have to pay more under those arrangements and subsidise women, which would be open to the argument that it was discriminating against women. Alternatively, because women live longer, they themselves would have to pay a higher contribution, and that would also be claimed as discrimination against women.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister think that his prices and incomes policy will retard or expedite the progress of women to 90 per cent. of equal pay for equal work by the end of this year? If he thinks that that target will be achieved, why does he not introduce an order as provided for under the Act originated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)?

The Prime Minister: The target of 1975 remains. There is a clear instance at present with the National Health Service ancillaries, which I have quoted previously in the House. In addition to the present offer of £l·80p made to women a further instalment of 80p has been offered in October in order to carry


forward movement towards equal pay. This is specifically allowed for in the Government's policies.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for the work of the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Central Policy Review Staff is at the disposal of the Government as a whole and works for Ministers collectively.

Mr. Brnce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that this body may need rather closer political supervision? Has his attention been drawn to a recent Press report of a speech of Lord Rothschild, in which the noble Lord said that he and his thinkers were busy studying where the Government had not deviated from their election manifesto but ought to have done so? Is this really a thoroughly suitable occupation for a bunch of civil servants, however eminent?

The Prime Minister: It is well known to administrations of both major political parties that Government Departments constantly analyse and take account of both Government political manifestos and Opposition manifestos. It is absolutely right that they should do so.

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is right and Lord Rothschild is working on those aspects of Tory policy which have not been traduced since the General Election, may we take it from that that Lord Rothschild's team is working only part-time?

The Prime Minister: If that were to be so, it would be because the Government will, by the end of this Session, have carried through the greater part of the legislative programme set out in the manifesto.

Mr. Atkinson: What are the general directions given to this team? There is misunderstanding throughout the country about whether it is the Government's intention to return as soon as possible to an entirely free market economy or

whether the Prime Minister's personal view will now prevail and that we should look forward to intervention in the economy for the foreseeable future.

The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman and the House, as well as telling the TUC and the CBI on countless occasions, that it is the Government's desire to return to an entirely voluntary policy which would be negotiated between the TUC, the CBI and the Government.

Mr. Benn: Did the Central Policy Review Staff work on the BSA support programme announced yesterday, on which it appears that the Government have been engaged for two months? Is the CPRS working on individual projects of that kind?

The Prime Minister: It is not the task of the CPRS to work on individual projects, unless they are matters which, under the instructions of a Minister, it is asked to work on because they cover more than one Department. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that there are at times matters which cross the boundaries of a number of Departments. One of the useful purposes of the CPRS would be to do an analysis covering several Departments.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC to discuss the economy and inflation.

The Prime Minister: There are no arrangements for a further meeting at present, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: Would not a meeting be in order to discuss the TUC's request for a commission of inquiry into the hospital workers' strike? A commission of inquiry might find out, for instance, that a mortuary attendant who has to stitch together the bits of road accident victims or drain the bodies of people who have been drowned receives only £19·80 a week for doing a job like that. Should not such facts be made available to the public and the Government?

The Prime Minister: As the TUC knows, it was invited to discuss the whole


of the pay code with the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically invited the TUC to do that, and I have invited the TUC myself. The TUC has not accepted the invitation. The Government can take no responsibility for that. If the TUC had accepted the invitation, there was no aspect of the Price and Pay Code which it could not have discussed fully with us.
As for individual aspects, as the House knows full well they can be referred to the Pay Board. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman especially responsible, and the Secretary, are available already for references of this kind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend note that what is happening at present seems to show that reasonableness is beginning to prevail and that it is not for one side or another to claim that they are getting a victory but to make certain that at the end of the day common sense is recognised on all sides so that the nation will not suffer?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree very much with my hon. Friend that this is the situation. Very often, from the media, people at home and especially people abroad get an entirely wrong impression of the real position here. At a time when we have well over 20 million people working hard and every day, working increased hours with high earnings in an expanding economy, the numbers who are either on strike or carrying out disruptive action are very small.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are very pleased indeed to see his move away from his confrontation policy and, in that sense, that reasonableness should apply? We are all glad about that. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the only possible way that we can get a solution to the economic problems confronting Britain is for him to be a little more elastic and to try to persuade the TUC and its constituent unions to get around the table, instead of being just slightly offhand with the TUC, and to recognise that unless the TUC is consulted and has discussions the right hon. Gentleman will get nowhere?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's allegation is completely unjustified. In the talks which we had from July onwards until October, and again at the beginning of this year, I believe that in our relationship with the TUC and the joint discussions in depth we as a Government and I myself as Prime Minister have been closer than any other previous administration. At present we are carrying on discussions with the TUC over a very wide field of common interest. It is over the particular aspect of the prices and incomes policy and the invitation to discuss the Price and Pay Code that the TUC has not felt able to accept the invitation.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not an offer of another week's holiday for the miners would be within the counter-inflation policy and the code?

The Prime Minister: At present the miners have two weeks' continuous holiday. I think that they have seven rest days, the public holidays and, in addition, five individual holidays. What the National Coal Board has offered them, which is entirely within the code, is that those five days should be made into a week's holiday, which would enable miners then to take three continuous week's holiday if they so desired. This is entirely within the code and that is what they have been offered.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry on the future development of the economy.

The Prime Minister: 1 met representatives of the CBI, accompanied by Lord Melchett representing the nationalised industries, on Thursday 15th March, to discuss the consultative document on the Prices and Pay Code. The CBI expressed its support for the objectives of the Government's counter-inflation policies and agreed that the Government's commitment to a high rate of growth was being fulfilled. The CBI emphasised that there should be no discouragement of efficiency or of the investment necessary to maintain growth. The Government undertook to consider very carefully the points which were made.

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the representations made by the CBI to the Government arguing that the regional employment premium should be continued until 1978? Is he also aware of the CBI's prediction that if REP is not continued there will be a loss of jobs in the development areas numbering between 20,000 and 50,000? Will the Prime Minister listen to the CBI on this occasion? If not, will he explain how Scotland will fare after £40 million has gone from its economy in 1974?

The Prime Minister: My hon Friend the Minister of Stale, Scottish Office, saw the Scottish section of the CBI last Friday, when it put various points to him. I do not endorse the figures which the hon. Gentleman and the CBI have given. I see no reason why the Scots should have dramatic figures of that kind thrown at them. But we shall note the points raised by the CBI and examine them.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the CBI has at least always been constructive at its meetings with him? Will he further agree that the TUC might be induced to be more constructive if he were prepared to discuss with the trade unions some form of no-strike bonus, possibly beginning with the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to make any distinction between the CBI and the TUC on the basis of constructive contributions to the talks that we have had on a large number of occasions. I am not sure that the suggestion that my hon. Friend put forward has been examined. If the nationalised industries wish to deal with the matter it is open to them to do so. If the TUC or the CBI were to put it forward for discussion we should gladly take part in those discussions.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In his examination of the submissions by the CBI on REP will the Prime Minister take into account that there are other ways of achieving the benefits which all of industry has in the development areas? For example, in Italy there are reductions in the employers' contribution in certain areas and that is admissible under the Treaty of Rome. Is not that an alternative? Industry is worried that REP is

being withdrawn and that the Government are suggesting no replacement.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is right when he says that there is a considerable number of ways in which the same result from the point of view of purchasing power can be brought about. It can be done on a regional basis and the hon. Member is right about the Community. It is necessary to emphasise that REP will not stop by the end of 1974 but that it will be phased out over a period, and we have undertaken to have discussions with the CBI and the TUC about the timing of that phasing-out.

Mr. Benn: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that uncertainty about the future of REP is affecting investment decisions now and that unless companies know now whether REP will continue they are unlikely to site their factories in the development areas?

The Prime Minister: There is no evidence that this aspect of REP is having any deterrent effect on investment in the development areas, but that does not alter the fact that we will have discussions as soon as possible about the phasing-out after 1974.

NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a statement. The Government have today published a White Paper setting out constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland. I will not today take the House through our proposals in detail, especially as I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that there should be an opportunity for an early debate.
The Government propose to present to Parliament as soon as possible a Bill which will provide for a restoration of elected institutions in Northern Ireland to which a wide range of governmental powers will be devolved. There will be a single-chamber Assembly of about 80 members elected on this occasion by the single transferable vote method of proportional representation applied to the 12 Westminster constituencies. The Office


of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will continue and, as well as bearing responsibility for those services reserved to him, he will represent Northern Ireland's interests in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
The Northern Ireland Executive will be formed from the Assembly and discussions will be put in hand immediately by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with the party leaders in the newly-elected Assembly on how this will be done. But the Government have decided that the Executive cannot henceforward be based on any single party if that party draws it support and its elected representation virtually entirely from only one section of a divided community.
When the Government are satisfied that this condition can be met and that the system will be worked by those concerned, Parliament will be asked to approve the devolution of extensive law-making and executive powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
There will, however, be a range of matters which will be excluded from the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the present security situation there will be no devolution of responsibilities within the area of law and order. Arrangements will be made for the Northern Ireland Executive to be consulted on law and order matters, and for the involvement of elected representatives from the Assembly and from district councils.
The heads of departments in the Executive will also be chairmen of functional committees whose membership will, so far as possible, reflect party strengths in the Assembly. No new law or policy will be proposed unless the appropriate committees have been consulted.
The White Paper proposes a charter of human rights for Northern Ireland. Central and local government and statutory boards will be debarred from any legislative and executive action of a discriminatory nature. In addition, a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights will be set up to co-ordinate the activities of all agencies working in this field, both in the public and private sector.
A Bill will in due course be brought before Parliament to deal with job discrimination on religious or political grounds in the private sector following the recommendations of a Northern Ireland Working Party including both sides of industry.
The Government reaffirm the pledge that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of its people and this declaration will form part of the constitutional Bill.
The Government favour the formation of a Council of Ireland but this must be achieved by consent. Therefore, following the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government propose to invite representatives of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland to a conference to discuss three inter-related problems. These are the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland and of the possibility— which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent changes in that status; effective consultation and co-operation in Ireland for the benefit of the North and South alike; and the provision of a firm basis for concerted governmental and community action against terrorist organisations. The Northern Ireland Assembly will thereby have an opportunity to play a full part in devising the form of any such council.
The introduction of new institutions in Northern Ireland must be accompanied by progress in the economic sphere. The Government will judge the financial needs of Northern Ireland so as to accomplish as quickly as possible the task of reconstruction; create a sound basis for the economy; and work progressively towards the achievement in Northern Ireland of those standards of living, employment and social conditions which prevail in Great Britain. When the new institutions in Northern Ireland have been formed, the Government propose to discuss with them how they can exercise, within prescribed limits, a large measure of freedom of decision as regards financial priorities and policies.
In putting forward these proposals, the Government recognise that there is no more urgent task than to bring violence to an end. They will take all steps which are necessary. As part of this task Parliament


will shortly be asked to approve legislation to combat terrorism more effectively. This legislation will give effect to the recommendations of the Diplock Commission and will repeal the Special Powers Act, re-enacting only those measures which are still essential. The Government propose that this legislation should operate only in an emergency and should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
These are the Government's proposals. Under them Northern Ireland will continue to have a greater degree of self-government than any other part of the United Kingdom. Both the majority and minority communities will have an opportunity to play a full part in dealing with issues and procedures of crucial domestic importance to Northern Ireland.
The proposed settlement is devised for the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. It cannot meet all the wishes of any one section of the community. It requires the co-operation of all the people of Northern Ireland.
A heavy responsibility now rests upon their leaders. There can be no excuse for withdrawal of co-operation or resort to violence. The many problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved by Government alone but the proposed settlement, given good will, will provide a fair and reasonable basis for progress.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The House will be aware that Labour Members have been pressing for the publication of the White Paper both for itself and in the context of the border poll. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, consequently, that we welcome the publication of the White Paper? We have expressed positive views on many matters in the White Paper—for example, on forms of proportional representation, on power sharing, on the vital need to end the Special Powers Act, and on the all-Ireland dimension and on economic affairs. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we would all be wise to follow the advice of the trade unions of Northern Ireland and of the Council of Churches to consider carefully the words of the White Paper before giving our firm views? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On the all-Ireland dimension, are not all the indications that the Government of the Republic wish to co-operate? Is there any indica-

tion, however, that the Government of the Republic will recognise the three objectives of the discussion paper, particularly the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland?
With regard to the changes proposed in the existing government of Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State convey to the Governor and his wife our thanks for a job done well and with courage?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the White Paper would indicate that, apart from the firearms licensing order which is outstanding for discussion, there are five pieces of legislation which will come before us? These are the following: renewal of the Temporary Provisions Act; Diplock and the ending of the Special Powers Act; the constitutional Bill; the jobs discrimination Bill; and the order removing existing discrimination laws and the laws of allegiance.
On behalf of the Opposition I should like to make it clear that we shall scrutinise these measures carefully and critically with one supreme aim, namely to have Assembly elections at an early date. In our view, there should be June elections in which all can participate. And should not all those who aspire to leadership speak clearly against violence and concentrate their minds on Assembly elections?
We believe in a political solution for Northern Ireland. But will the Secretary of State assure the House that if there is any attempt, from any source, to erect road blocks and in any other way to attempt to bring the Province to its knees, the security forces will act firmly? In any event the restoration of law and order and the whole question of the police will be vital subjects to discuss in the months to come.
Is it not the case that the approach of most of us in this House has been based on a belief in the strength of the forces of moderation? Only the people of Northern Ireland can tell us whether this belief is well-founded. The Government must provide the means for them to speak soon—in June. In making their choice the people and the leaders of Northern Ireland must face up to the consequences of their response. It is a choice perhaps between co-operation and bloodshed. Is


it not the case that if there is no co-operation there will have to be in the end, whether we like it or not, a radical reappraisal of Government policy?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for the way in which he put his questions. I strongly agree with him that it would be most helpful if everyone were to follow the advice of Church leaders, many political leaders and trade union leaders who have urged everybody in Northern Ireland to read the White Paper carefully and not to be swayed into making instant comment or wild allegations. I hope that advice will be followed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. It is true that in Northern Ireland all the political parties in one way or another wish to see increased co-operation, mainly through a Council of Ireland. On his side, Mr. Cosgrave has recently talked of the need for reconciliation and pacification. I believe that in those two moods we shall be able to lay the basis for future co-operation.
As for the legislative proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred, subject to final checking I think that he was absolutely correct in what he said.
As for the need to have Assembly elections soon, I strongly endorse that view. It would be most desirable to have these elections at an early date because until they have been held it is difficult to tell exactly the strength of the different feelings in Northern Ireland. When we may have them will depend on many factors —not least the time it takes to get through this House the legislation on which any future elections have to be based.
On the question of violence, I can assure hon. Gentlemen and the House that, as I said in my statement, there can be no excuse for violence of any sort arising out of the publication of the White Paper. But if there is violence, from whatever side it may come, it will be met by the firmest possible action by the security forces.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although I accept and endorse what he said about the making of instant comment, I believe that it would be wrong to leave the House under any illusion that the White Paper would be

totally acceptable to the majority in Ulster. None the less, we intend to carry out the full consultative process and to use the democratic process. We do not believe that there is anything in the White Paper to justify any resort to violence. We shall seek to use the procedures of this House to change the Government's mind in those respects in which we disapprove.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), particularly for his strong condemnation of any thought of resort to violence. On his first point, I said in my statement that the Government proposals are unlikely to be totally acceptable to any section of opinion in Northern Ireland. It is inevitable that there has to be compromise and goodwill if any such plans for the future are to work. I hope that on this occasion everybody in Northern Ireland will look to the future and forget some of the grievances and prejudices of the past, for it is only by looking to the future that any system of co-operation and of government can hope to work.

Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from one who has pressed successive Governments on the question of Northern Ireland that his constitutional proposals deserve careful and sympathetic consideration, and that that consideration must be conducted in an atmosphere free from intimidation or violence from whatever source? Could he assist me on two matters? The first relates to the question of discrimination. Does he intend to set up a board, analogous to the Race Relations Board in this country, to deal with allegations of discrimination, and do his constitutional proposals mean that at last we in this country will be able to sign the European Covention of Human Rights in its entirety?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that I should bring out in more detail in debate the exact position of our proposed charter of human rights. It is not quite analogous with the Race Relations Board. I hope the House will read carefully the encouraging letter which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, as chairman of the working party representing both sides of industry, has sent me showing the results of his discussions


with both sides of industry. We believe that work on this front is very important and that if we can build on the proposals of both sides of industry in Northern Ireland this will be a fruitful way of proceeding.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland at heart will look carefully and constructively at these proposals, which are essentially set in a United Kingdom context? Is he further aware that, speaking for myself, I believe that it is right to proceed on the basis of power sharing at executive level, although we shall need to look in detail at the proposals? May I ask my right hon. Friend not to close his mind to the point about full and adequate representation for Northern Ireland in this House, bearing in mind that the average Northern Ireland constituency contains 85,000 persons as against 54,000 for Scotland and Wales and 64,000 for the United Kingdom as as whole? Is he aware that it is surely right for there to be a recognition in this document that the Council of Ireland can be established only on the basis of consent and on the basis of a recognition of the current Northern Ireland situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The Government have set out their views and beliefs on power sharing and I am pleased that my hon. Friend agrees with them. I accept at once that it is a difficult concept to develop and that there will be many who will say that it cannot work. I and the Government as a whole are convinced that it can and will work, given good will on both sides. That is undoubtedly what is needed. Dealing with my hon. Friend's point about representation at Westminster, he must appreciate that we are devolving a wide range of governmental powers to the new Northern Ireland Assembly and that, in those circumstances, Northern Ireland will have a far greater degree of self-government than any other part of the United Kingdom. The point about the Council of Ireland was covered in the White Paper and in my statement.

Miss Devlin: With respect to the Church and the State, I am sure that the House will agree that when Church and State stand shoulder to shoulder and ask

that people read the White Paper with great care and consideration they can rest assured that the working-class will do just that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Church and State stand shoulder to shoulder on an issue as important as this there are bound to be 151 loopholes in the White Paper about which the working class will have to be very careful? There is one question I want to raise, while maintaining my own views on the introduction of the White Paper. It concerns Paragraph 118, the latter part of which speaks of:
those small but dangerous minorities which would seek to impose their views by violence and coercion,
The next bit is the interesting bit. It goes on,
which cannot, therefore, be allowed to participate in working institutions they wish to destroy.
Since I have never made any secret in this House about my position and my intention to destroy the capitalist system and yet am allowed to sit in this House, does this mean that members of either wing of the Republican movement, whose avowed aim is to end British intervention in Ireland, will not be allowed to contest elections at either local government or Assembly level? If not what does it mean?

Mr. Whitelaw: The simple point I would make in reply to the hon. Lady— without prejudging who may or may not decide to participate in local government or other elections—is that the important thing in the context of Northern Ireland, which she must face, is that people who are determined to have resort to violence to press their views cannot at the same time expect to take part in constitutional developments.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and his Ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office have earned the gratitude of the whole of the United Kingdom for the courage, wisdom and patience which they have displayed over the last 12 months? Is he further aware that our devout hope and prayer is that these proposals will lead to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am obviously grateful for what my hon. Friend said. If I


do not deserve it, I certainly feel that it is deserved by my other Ministers. I devoutly hope that, while they may be argued about and while we can discuss them at length, the proposals will form the basis for a genuine new start and advance in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that the best service that could be rendered to Ireland is to suspend detailed judgment until we have given careful consideration to the White Paper? After a first reading, may I ask whether it is fair to say that, perhaps for the first time, moderates in Northern Ireland, who may well have differing objectives but who have in common a belief in democratic processes, may have a chance to appreciate that they are in the majority and will thereby have the chance to take responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland? Is he aware that if that is the case, these people will have the wholehearted support of this House and that, conversely, those who indulge in non-co-operation and violence will be condemned not only by this House but by people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
On a more personal basis, is he aware that, subject to a detailed consideration of the White Paper, we recognise the painstaking and impartial approach which he has shown in these matters as an honest broker and we would wish to recognise that on this occasion? Finally, is he aware that there is nothing that this House would want more than that perhaps one of the most agonising and at times shameful chapters in the history of this country should give way to a period of peace and tolerance which would be in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and particularly of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have no doubt that these proposals do represent a chance for moderate opinion and for those people who wish to work together for the good of the whole community in Northern Ireland. We in the rest of the United Kingdom are entitled to point out that we have been prepared to give them, as is their right as citizens of the

United Kingdom, our men and our money in their support. That we believe to be right. We also believe that they have their obligations and that one of those is to seek to work together for the future. It is only in that way that Northern Ireland can possibly have both the peace and the prosperity which the vast majority of its citizens so greatly deserve.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that across a very wide section of Loyalist groups in Northern Ireland there has been an acceptance of the fact that this White Paper should be carefully studied and that those who represent organisations and bodies with which this House might totally disagree have bound themselves not to take any hasty decision on this White Paper? Surely this should be welcomed by all sections of the House and we should be glad that people are moving away from street confrontation and are prepared to take part in political discussions and to discuss this White Paper.
Is he aware that the people of Northern Ireland will be sad that they are to lose the Governor of Northern Ireland? May I take this opportunity of paying a very since tribute to Lord Grey and his wife on behalf of the Province of Northern Ireland? Let me say as a mild criticism that there would be no tears shed if the right hon. Gentleman had axed the whole Northern Ireland Privy Council but there will be tears shed because the Governor of Northern Ireland is going. How will the right hon. Gentleman carry on the anomaly of a Privy Council which will have no power whatever in Northern Ireland?
I do not want to make any quick decisions on this White Paper but there is one matter which should be stressed. There is a list of obligations on page 5, one of which says that it is an obligation of the people of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom to respect the decisions of the Crown in Parliament. Surely it should also be an obligation on this Parliament to see that the people of Northern Ireland are fully represented in this House? Since it seems that full parliamentary representation will not be obtained in the Assembly, is it not right that such representation should be given in this House?
hon. Member for what he said about the need to study the White Paper carefully, and indeed to promote political discussion as opposed to politics on the street. What he said was extremly helpful and is greatly welcomed.
I also greatly welcome his reference to the present Governor of Northern Ireland, Lord Grey, and to Lady Grey. This gives me the opportunity personally to say that I have received from both Lord and Lady Grey during the last year, when I have lived with them at Hillsborough, utmost kindness and also a great deal of help and support without which I do not feel that the job we have done could possibly have been achieved. I am grateful to be able to pay that tribute.
As to representation at Westminster, I contend that, with the large measure of devolution of powers that we propose, Northern Ireland is well represented at Westminster. I rather suspect that that is something with which the hon. Member will agree.

Mr. McManus: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a few preliminary questions? Will he agree that the present nature of the RUC lies very near to the heart of the problem in Northern Ireland and that, far from being strengthened, this force and equipment needs to be completely reformed and restructured if it is ever to be accepted as a police force? Will he further accept that internment without trial also lies very near to the problem and that until it is ended, or seems to be ending, the proposals in the White Paper cannot hope to be entirely successful? Finally, will he accept that his retreat from the definition of the Irish dimension which he mentioned might be interpreted by the minority in Northern Ireland as a studied insult to their feelings and aspirations?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Member's first point about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I do not wish to get into discussion of detail in these matters except to say that the acceptance of the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is absolutely vital to any future possible success in Northern Ireland, because it is necessary over a period of time to build up the police and therefore to reduce the number of soldiers we have to have in Northern Ireland. That is extremely

important. Therefore I welcome any constructive suggestions by which we can strengthen the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
On the second point, I claim that the Detention of Terrorists Order, which was accepted by Lord Diplock as necessary in present circumstances—and, indeed, commended by many emminent legal authorities in another place—is different in kind from internment in that it no longer represents the signature of a political member of an executive, but gives the opportunity for those who go before the Commissioners to argue their case with a right of appeal and so to be judged in, I believe, a far better legal framework than under internment. I therefore regard it as different.
As to the hon. Member's reference to a retreat, I regret that because there has been no retreat.

Mr. Deedes: Is it not clear that much remains to be decided and will depend on the outcome of the forthcoming General Election in Northern Ireland, including the crucial point of who will share power on the Executive? Will it not be a good thing for all parties in Northern Ireland to bear that prospect in mind?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with my right hon Friend. I believe that it is a crucial part of our proposals that it must be right to give those who are elected to the new Assembly a chance to work together. Until they are elected, it is difficult to know exactly to whom we are talking and who will have that opportunity. That makes the elections extremely important. It also makes it important for all those who may have doubts about matters of power-sharing in the future to appreciate that the first thing to do is to fight the election, then come to the Assembly and, at that stage, if they have doubts to voice them properly.

Mr. Harold Wilson: First, on the reference made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to His Excellency the Governor and the Governor's Lady, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us wish to be associated with what has been said? In view of the great record of public service by Lord Grey, both in Northern Ireland and for decades before, should the Government decide that any action on their part is due to honour or


pay tribute or in any way to make provision for the Governor on his retirement, they will have the full support, I am sure, of the whole House.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our decision this afternoon to desist from making instant comments, or proposing amendments to particular paragraphs of this White Paper, stems from a recognition that it must be the responsibility of the Government to put forward these proposals—and only the Government? Is he aware that we recognise that this White Paper is their conception of a balanced and fair package after very great consideration and consultation and that it must now be for the people of Northern Ireland to form their own view without any steering or guidance from us in this House at this time, and that the first preoccupation of all of us must be the avoidance of violence and the furthering of a settlement based, as religious leaders on both sides of the water have pleaded, on reconciliation and mutual tolerance?
Is he aware that in our view, in putting forward this document, the right hon. Gentleman has the right to commend it for careful consideration by all sections of opinion, the more so in that the White Paper itself—and this can be too easily disregarded—provides machinery and proposals for change in the White Paper provisions by consent, and above all, by consultation with a new and elected Assembly —an Assembly which will provide the most up-to-date and authoritative measure of what belief, what attitudes and what principles are genuinely representative not of extremist factions in Northern Ireland but of the people as a whole? Because of that provision for change after consultation with the Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman in our view has all the more reason to ask for patience and full consideration by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said, particularly in view of the fact that among many other preoccupations he has taken a very special interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am very grateful for what he said about the Governor. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's further proposals go far wider than my responsibilities, but I know that they have been

listened to by those who have those responsibilities. As to proposals about change and the need for patience, I think this is absolutely right and I very much hope that it will be followed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
Amendments to the Counter-Inflation Bill have been received from another place and will be brought before the House tomorrow following business already announced.
Following the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it might be for the convenience of the House for me to say that we plan to hold a debate on Wednesday 28th March on the subject of the White Paper. I thought that perhaps the House would want to know that.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We thank the right hon. Gentleman for the second point in his announcement. Of course the Government will no doubt feel free, if the situation in Northern Ireland demands it, to postpone that debate if that is in the best interests of a satisfactory solution.
On the first part, I understand that there are a number of amendments from another place, not necessarily all of fundamental and vital importance. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many there are? Can he also confirm that there will be copies of the Lords HANSARD available to hon. Members in the rather unusual circumstances in which we have to debate these matters at this time?

Mr. Prior: Without being held to an exact number, I think there are 11 amendments. I think we had better see how we get on during the night in question.
I have been checking very carefully on the availability of papers and I am pleased to be able to say that at least 300 copies of the Lords HANSARD of the Committee stage and the Report stage are available and that 300 copies of the Lords amendments are available in


the Vote Office. There are 250 copies of the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords at the moment, and a further 150 will be available by tomorrow morning. I think we can say that all papers needed are available, but I must request hon. Members to make personal application to the Vote Office for them because, if secretaries go for them, we sometimes find there are not enough copies to go round.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with a one-day debate on this great paper? Will he confirm that, when it comes to the legislation, the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Prior: The latter part of what my hon. Friend said relates to something a little way off, and I should like to consider it further. On the first part, I hope that we can express ourselves adequately in a day's debate, but I should like to consider that, too.

Mr. McNamara: May I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about a mere five and a half hour debate on a document of the utmost importance. Allowing two hours for the Front Bench speakers, and three hours for the 12 Northern Ireland Members, which would be reasonable for them to take, that leaves only half an hour for the other 500 Members who are not on the Front Bench or on the payroll vote.

Mr. Prior: This is something which the House will have to consider. [HON. MEMBERS: "For you to consider."] I am putting it in the time-honoured fashion. This is a very important matter, but we are not generally short of opportunities to debate matters relating to Northern Ireland. I am by no means saying that we should not have a longer time than I have suggested.

Mr. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the legislation will be ready and debated? There may be an advantage in having a two-day debate on Second Reading, including a debate on the White Paper.

Mr. Prior: As the White Paper has been published only today, the legislation

is still a little way off. I should like to consider further what the right hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps we can return to this on the business statement on Thursday.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the interests of the ecumenical movement, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who pressed for a two-day debate on the White Paper? It is very important that all those who represent Northern Ireland, as well as those who have taken an interest in it, should have an opportunity of expressing their views. The more democratic channels there are open for debate, the less chance there is of street fighting. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, on the 28th, the House will also consider the prolongation of the temporary provisions Act?

Mr. Prior: It is our intention to take the prolongation order on that same day. I noted what my hon. and gallant Friend said. Far be it from me to wish to come between him and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I shall have to consider this carefully.

Miss Devlin: Further to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and bearing in mind that responsibility has been urged upon everyone, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that it seems unfair not only to hon. Members; but also to the population of Northern Ireland, to ask them to listen to their elected representatives, to ask them to be guided by the democratic institutions, and then to impose—I choose my words carefully— what appears to be a kind of voluntary censorship, and to exercise that kind of censorship on the only means left open to the people of Northern Ireland to express their views?
As we are taking a number of matters together, and as it is some time since Northern Ireland has been discussed in this House, other than at two o'clock in the morning, is it not time that there was a two-day debate on Northern Ireland? There are a number of important matters to discuss, and it will not be possible to debate them in five-and-a-half or six hours.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Lady must not talk in terms of censorship, because that would give a totally wrong impression of everything that has happened in the House this afternoon. I recognise the points that have been made from both sides of the House, and I shall consider them carefully.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend consider the amount of time that it will take for all the Ulster Members to express their views on the White Paper? They are going off to consult their constituents in great depth in order to get the feeling of people there. They should all have an opportunity to express their views. Will my right hon. Friend therefore please give sympathetic consideration to the request for at least a two-day debate on the White Paper?

Mr. Prior: I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We must press the Leader of the House on this. There must be adequate time for debating the White Paper. It is not just a matter for Irish Members. The nonsense in paragraph 32 is a matter on which many British Members will want to make a contribution

Mr. Prior: I have noted the hon. Gentlemant's comments.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If we have a two-day debate on the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that time is not taken up with eight Front Bench speeches?

Mr. Prior: I shall look into that. Following what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) said, there will have to be a Second Reading of the Bill before long, and I should like to consider that in conjunction with the time that we shall make available for debating the White Paper.

HOSPITAL WORKERS (DISPUTE)

4.11 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important

matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the hospital service.
That the matter is specific cannot be gainsaid. That it is important, every hon. Member who has a hospital in his constituency must be aware. As to its urgency, every day that goes by and this dispute continues is a day nearer the total breakdown of the hospital service.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member gave me notice of his intention to make this application. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the hospital service.
This is a matter for me. It is a matter for my discretion. I am forbidden from giving reasons. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary for anybody to stand, unless somebody says "No".
The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day in the case of the Questions which under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith at Ten o'clock, he shall this day put such Questions forthwith as soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply.—[Mr Jopling.]

REPLICA FIREARMS CONTROL BILL

4.13 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, 
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the supply and possession of replica hand and shoulder firearms.
The Bill is being introduced in response to the views of a large number of hon. Members, as is possibly instanced by Early Day Motion No. 200 which appeared on the Order Paper a few weeks ago.
In an endeavour to secure a satisfactory and simple Bill which would be enacted at a fairly early date, the sponsors of the Bill and I looked at several alternatives to see which was the most appropriate. We received many suggestions. One suggestion, which we rejected out of hand, was that the possessor of any replica firearm should possess a licence for it. It was felt that that would be far too cumbersome, and the work involved ruled it out of consideration.
The second suggestion which we considered for effecting some form of sensible control was to introduce a Bill and to list in a schedule all the possible replicas which should be banned or controlled. Again it was found on research that so voluminous and numerous were the number of identical replicas available at home and abroad that such a measure would necessitate a considerable amount of work in producing a schedule, and just as much work in keeping it up to date.
Although no one has greater admiration for the ability of the Home Office and its Ministers than I, we felt this might be too much of a responsibility to place upon them, so we came to the conclusion that the best and most effective way of introducing a simple method of controlling dangerous and replica firearms was by what I will call for the purpose of this Bill the "vetting" procedure.
Briefly, this Bill when it is printed will seek to authorise the Home Secretary to establish a vetting committee which would not be large and would include, for instance, representatives from the

police, the Home Office, importers, manufacturers, retailers and the general public. They would meet monthly and would be concerned only with realistic hand and shoulder replica firearms. The Bill, which will be printed shortly, will define the type of replica with which the vetting committee would be concerned as one which was more than 75 per cent. physically identical with the original it was copying. The purpose of this is to free the vetting committee from a lot of cumbersome material and obvious toys which otherwise would flood in upon it.
A replica above the 75 per cent. tolerance permitted under the Bill would be submitted to the vetting committee which would be empowered to prohibit its sale in this country if it so decided. We propose to place responsibility for the submission of these replicas on the shoulders of manufacturers and importers. One of the measures we shall include in the short Bill is to provide that as soon as it is enacted by both Houses the vetting committee will be established and will come into operation at once, and the regulations concerning imported and home-manufactured replicas contained in the Bill will come into effect forthwith. It is recognised that, quite obviously, there will be considerable stocks in dealers' hands. To enable them to dispose of these it is proposed to provide a period of 18 months' grace in the Bill from the date of enactment for this purpose.
Finally, I will explain to the House that the vetting committee procedure is not at all new. It is a procedure which has been used most effectively in certain Government Departments in the past. It is currently in use in the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of agricultural chemicals and it has worked very successfully in that Department. Every new chemical, before it comes on to the market must be submitted to the Ministry's committee for vetting and approval. This procedure sometimes lasts up to three or four years. After extensive trials, chemicals which pass the test are given official approval.
It is proposed in the Bill that this vetting committee would have similar powers except that, of course, consideration and decision would be instantaneous.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Farr, Mr. Ronald Bray, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Marcus Kimball, Mrs. Jill Knight, Sir Harmar Nicholls, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. John Page and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

REPLICA FIREARMS CONTROL

Bill to regulate the supply and possession of replica hand and shoulder firearms, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraph 11 of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1973–74 (NAVY), VOTE A

Question,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1974 a number not exceeding 84,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service.

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1973–74 (ARMY), VOTE A

Question,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1974 a number not exceeding 198,500 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 66,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 89,500 for the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve and a number not exceeding 10,000 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1973–74 (AIR), VOTE A

Question,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1974 a number not exceeding 110,000 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 11,890 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1973–74 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Question,

That a sum, not exceeding £1,150,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence for the year ending on 31st March 1974, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 113.

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1972–73

Question,

That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £269,911,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1973, for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 77, 78, 165 and 166.

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, (EXCESSES), 1971–72

Question,

That a sum, not exceeding £33,524,096·23, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil and Defence Services for the year ended 31st March 1972, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 183.

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the fourth, fifth and sixth of the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Higgins.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3)

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1972, 1973 and 1974, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Orders of the Day — RATES

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the essential services provided by local government, regrets the additional financial burdens being imposed upon substantial numbers of ratepayers by Her Majesty's Government's failure to control inflation, and as a direct result of increased interest charges and such measures as the Housing Finance Act; in particular, deplores the worsening financial plight of the big cities and Her Majesty's Government's refusal to act immediately, so as to provide them with increased financial assistance which the size of their social problems demands; and condemns as inadequate the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for dealing with those domestic ratepayers worst hit by rating revaluation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): It is too long.

Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and his hon. Friends, in line 1, to leave out from 'government' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
Endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to make a substantial increase in the rate support grant to local authorities to enable their essential services to develop at a reasonable rate; welcomes the help to be given to domestic rate payers both by the biggest ever increase in the domestic element of rate support grant, and by the special relief for those worst hit by revaluation; and calls upon local authorities to support Her Majesty's Government's measures to counter inflation by avoiding unnecessarily high rate levies.

Mr. Howell: The Under-Secretary says that the motion is too long; but it is not a word too long, since every word is absolutely valid. It is as well to remind ourselves as we do in this motion of the importance of local government to the people of this country. It provides most of our citizens with a home or the means of servicing a home, and education for their children, welfare for the sick and old, care and compassion for the deprived and an environment in which to work and to live. Local government is not a luxury. It is the essence of life for most of the people of this country, and it costs money. It is our case today that the financing of local government has never been in a more critical state; and that,


instead of bringing support and relief to ratepayers, the policies of the Government have brought intolerable burdens and financial confusion.
Rates cannot be discussed in isolation from other Government policies. We are in the midst of a policy of severe wage restraint, and the obligation upon the Government is beyond doubt. It is to maintain existing services and to expand them where necessary and to keep down the cost to the ratepayer. That the Government recognised and accepted these obligations is beyond doubt. What is now also quite clear is that the Government have obviously failed in their obvious obligation to keep rates down to a reasonable average. We now have to hand information, particularly that provided last weekend by the Rating and Valuation Association, that the average increase in rates for the ratepayers of this country this year will be 11 per cent., in the midst of what is supposed to be a policy of severe wage and price restraint by the Government.
It is indicative of the state of affairs we have reached in this country at the moment that the 11 per cent. increase, which is the last intolerable burden for many people, was hailed by so many newspapers as a victory since they had feared even worse proposals. That is commentary enough.
Of the 666 local authorities which took part in the survey of the Rating and Valuation Association, 346 found that the rates in their area were going up by between 10 and 15 per cent., 220 found that the rates were going up by between 15 and 20 per cent., 87 found that the rates were going up by between 20 and 30 per cent. and 47 authorities, in this year of wage restraint, found that the rates were going up by more than 30 per cent. In other words, more than half the ratepayers will face rate increases of more than 10 per cent., and nearly one-quarter of the ratepayers will face increases of more than 20 per cent. That is the measure of the Government's failure.
What has brought about this situation? It is not the extravagent, expansionist policies of local authorities. The Government introduced what some of us thought at the time was a ridiculous proposal for monitoring the expenditure of every local authority. The Minister sent

out 1,419 letters, one to each local authority in the country. The overwhelming majority of those authorities are now receiving another letter from the Department which says that the Secretary of State has considered their precept of rates for next year and he has no comment to make upon the proposal.
Let the ratepayers be in no doubt that their local authorities' proposals have been examined in the greatest detail by the Government and in the overwhelming majority of cases the Government can find no fault with them. The only satisfactory feature of this ludicrous monitoring exercise is that the local government rating proposals have been examined in great detail with a fine-tooth comb and the local authorities have come out of this exercise with a clean bill of health.
I am told that the Government have suggested cuts in the expenditure of less than 20 per cent. of the authorities to whom the Minister wrote. Here again the Government take up an unsatisfactory position. Where they have suggested cuts they have not suggested how those cuts should be made. They are running away from the issue. The Government have not said which services are to be cut back. Is it to be education, housing, welfare or police? Who are the people to be sacked? Are they teachers, doctors or policemen? Now that we have seen the Government monitoring proposal in action, our judgment is that it is a piece of meaningless and irrelevant political public relations.
To return to the question why rates are going up, if the cause is not to be found in local government, clearly it must be found in national Government. As the motion says, rates are going up for two or three simple reasons. First, there are the inescapable local needs, the commitments that local authorities cannot avoid, such as building more houses, urban renewal, new schools, roads and drainage schemes, every one of which has been approved by a Government Department, otherwise the local authority could not embark on it.
Apart from the inescapable commitments, there is inflation. The total failure of the Government to keep prices down and to control inflation is being felt more by local authorities than by anyone else. Then there are the higher interest charges and the additional debt repayments,


which are monumental. Finally, to add to the woe of local authorities there are the Government-imposed measures, particularly the Housing Finance Act, the administration of which costs the local authorities millions of pounds, apart from any benefit that might accrue to the citizens.
The Government's policies are forcing up rates. I am glad to say that all the signs are that the people have rumbled the Government, and the Government know it. How else can we explain the remarkable attitude of the Minister of State last week in Birmingham? Last weekend there was a political charade in Birmingham when the Minister for Local Government and Development met two of his hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) and Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) and announced that Birmingham would this year get an extra £7½ million, an extra £7·50 for every man, woman and child. The hon. Member for Selly Oak said that we must know where all that money was going to, as if Birmingham had a profligate city council which was pouring money down the drain.
I have taken trouble to find out what is the additional burden for every man, woman and child in Birmingham, because the same burdens will apply in every other local authority area. Of that extra £7·50 for every man, woman and child, £2·20 is to meet the cost of administering the Housing Finance Act. The city treasurer of Birmingham receives the money only to pay it out again. Putting that on one side, the additional burdens on the citizens of Birmingham this year are made up in the following order.
First, there are the increased pay awards about which the council can do nothing because they are nationally negotiated. The additional burden on every man, woman and child in Birmingham arising from pay awards is £4·90. Then there are increased interest charges and debts for which every man, woman and child in Birmingham this year has to pay an extra £2·90 in rates. In addition, there are other unavoidable commitments, including the cost of the Housing Finance Act, which amount to £3·20. If we add up those figures, we find that the additional cost on the people of Birmingham this year will be £11 per head. If we

subtract the £7·50 which the Minister said he was providing, that leaves an imposition not catered for by the Government of £3·50 for every person living in Birmingham.
In the course of my investigations I discovered an alarming fact which should be of the greatest concern to every ratepayer in the country. The estimates I have just given, which show an additional £3·50 over and above any help provided by the Government, were based on estimates formulated by the treasurer in November or December of last year on the basis of interest rates prevailing at that time. When the city treasurer of Birmingham made his estimates he was borrowing short-term money at 7¾ per cent., but today he is having to borrow money at 11 per cent., and has even been borrowing it at 12 per cent. Most treasurers based their proposals on the belief that they would be borrowing long-term money at 9¼ per cent., whereas today the rate of interest is 10¼ per cent. If the present interest rates are likely to continue—and many people think that they will increase further—and if those rates are applied to Birmingham's rating proposal, there is an under-estimation of what will be needed for this year's work of at least £2 million. That is an additional £2 per head to add to the £3·50 which will have to be borne by every citizen of Birmingham. After taking full account of all Government help already offered or coming within the next 12 months, every man, woman and child in Birmingham will have to find an additional £5·50—a most serious matter.
If we apply that situation to the country as a whole, again a most alarming position is seen, because the Birmingham experience which I have just related means that interest charges are putting an additional 3 per cent. burden on the whole of local government even since the treasurers did their sums at the turn of the year, and that is equivalent to an additional burden on the ratepayers of the country of £180 million. In due course the Government will provide 60 per cent. of that by an interim order, but that will still leave the local authorities to find £72 million.
Another point of importance which I mention in passing is that the Government are not providing their 60 per


cent. of this £180 million now. They do not pay a penny until 12 months from now. The local governments have to raise the money at 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. interest to fund this additional burden. It is interest on top of interest —a most ludicrous position, which shows the chaos which local government has got into as a result of this situation.
I turn now to the question of the big cities, which is the automatic thing to do. The Government's answer to our case— and they have put it in their amendment —is that they are giving more help than ever before to local government because last year they paid 58 per cent. of the local government burden and this year they are providing 60 per cent. But it is part of our case, and it must now be accepted by everybody in the House, that the present formula for distributing local government aid is totally inadequate to deal with the situation facing most of our cities. These are the people who are left with all the burdens, all the social problems, and because the formula is based largely on population at a time when the population is, on the whole, moving out, yet leaving the problems behind, we have the situation which I can reveal to the House.
The big cities of this country are receiving nothing like 60 per cent. of their total expenditure from the Government next year. Birmingham is going to get 51 per cent.; Bristol is going to get 45 per cent. Manchester, excluding the domestic element, is interesting. I make my point about the imposition on the big cities by illustrating what has happened there over three years: in 1970–71, Manchester got 51·2 per cent. of its money from the Government; the following year, 1971–72, it got 48 per cent. of its money from the Government; this year, 1972–73, it is going to get only 46 per cent., not 60 per cent. Newcastle is going to get only 33·7 per cent. of its money from the Government, so it is in an absolutely intolerable position. Liverpool got 54·25 per cent. of its money in 1970-71 by means of Government grant and, again a disturbing position, this year it will get only 51·5 per cent. This shows the trend all the time against the interest of the big cities. Leeds, the last city I want to mention, is to get 52 per cent. of its money from the Government.
It is in these cities that all the industrial and commercial strength of this country is to be found. That is where the industrial workers reside; it is where the great burdens of urban decay, multiracial societies and ageing populations are. These cities need more money, not less, and they need it now, this year. Indeed, our charge against the Government is that they have shown a monumental complacency which is going to hit the cities, and particularly the ratepayers in those cities, hard.
I want to move now to the question of the formula. The formula on which we distribute money to our cities is, as I have said, obsolete because it is based upon various population factors and leaves totally out of account such matters as the financial imposition with which I have been dealing and the social problems. But the Government have not even started to put this right. They are only now rushing around to get the first discussions going in order to find something to replace this formula.
My own view is that one has to go back to some form of relationship between the money that is to be spent and the help which the Government are going to give. There has to be some sort of percentage relationship between the problems and the burdens and the financial help available. I cannot see any other way of meeting the problems of the big cities. I shall be interested to hear if the Minister has any other ideas.
The one thing we must know is when the Government are going to produce their proposals. The local governments are faced with a most serious financial situation. We have had a massive reform of local government, which comes into force in a year's time. Within three weeks the electors of this country will be going to the polls to decide the new councils. That process will start within the next three weeks. We have pointed out time and again in this House, especially when the Bill for the reform of local government came before it, that it is nonsense to reform the structure before making financial provision for local government. How on earth can any of the newly-elected councils, councils which are to be elected in three weeks' time, decide what their policies are to be if they do not know the basis on which they are to receive


financial help from the Government? It is total nonsense. We are adding confusion to confusion. Local authorities will not know what sort of policies, what sort of structure, their local council should have, because they will not know what sort of help they are to get or the principles on which it will be forthcoming. It is a chaotic situation.
The Government promised us a local government finance Bill; it was promised in the Queen's Speech. Not only have we not seen the Bill; we have not even seen a White Paper which might tell us what the Bill would be like. The least we should have had, and months ago, is a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals so that there could be some sensible discussion and so that the new local authorities could do some sensible planning.
Finally, I turn to the subject of revaluation. There can be little doubt that here the Government intended to take firmer action. The Prime Minister himself, in his speech at an AMC celebration at Guildhall, made a challenging declaration that there was no excuse for any local authority using revaluation in order to put its rates up, and he said that the Government would give assistance to those worst affected. What a piece of nonsense this system turned out to be. We find a considerable switch in most of our large cities from the domestic ratepayer in favour of the industrial and commercial ratepayer, and the result has been a tremendous additional burden. I refer again to the Government's proposals, which are to do nothing for the first 10 per cent, but to give half to those affected over 10 per cent. What that means in practice is that if one is a ratepayer in Birmingham one has no hope whatsoever of getting a penny under this proposal of the Government unless one's rates go up by 25 per cent, at least. If one lives in Manchester or Newcastle one's rates will have to go up by 26 per cent, before one qualifies for a penny. If one lives in Southampton they will have to go up 27·9 per cent., in Liverpool 31 per cent., in Newport, Mons., 35 per cent, and in Bristol 37 per cent. That is the percentage by which one's rates have to go up before one qualifies for a penny under this ludicrous proposal of the Government.
There are one or two observations to be made about this proposal. This £10 million may be almost worthless. Indeed, most treasurers tell me that it will cost more to administer this scheme than the relief handed out at the end of the day by the Government, because they have to vet every single rate demand and every single ratepayer in the economy. So that is ludicrous nonsense to start with. In addition, they cannot do it in time. They should be sending out rate demands now. So they are in the position of having either to send out demands now and give a rebate later, or not to sent them out, adjust their rate demands as quickly as they can and borrow the necessary money in the meantime at 11 or 12 per cent. What sort of economics is this? It is absolutely ridiculous.
Coming back to the Prime Minister's promise to keep down rates, the other important matter to notice is what is now being said about the 10 per cent, additional impost as a result of revaluation. The Prime Minister and his Government are saying to ratepayers " In our view a 10 per cent, burden is all right for you to bear. We expect you to carry the first additional 10 per cent." Incidentally, the Government do not tell the hospital ancillary workers or the gas men that a 10 per cent, increase is all right. When they deal with local rates and with wages and salaries they adopt quite different standards.
It is a totally incredible situation. The Government's scheme in this matter is nonsense. Local government has asked for help. Representatives of the big cities went to see the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, who offered so much, has been humbled by his own proposals and has had to eat his offers of help. That is a very serious situation.
The additional rate burdens are bad enough. But this House cannot consider them in isolation. The additional rate burdens come on top of all the other burdens that this Government are imposing. The ratepayer is also a householder. His rent has been forced up by the Government. His mortgage rates are going up in an extraordinary manner and apparently the Government are impotent. The ratepayer is also a consumer. Prices are going up. Food prices have gone up, and the Government say that they can do nothing. VAT will be coming into force


on 1st April, with his rate demand, assuming that it is sent out on time. The ratepayer is also a wage-earner. He sees increases in rents, house charges, mortgages, food prices, VAT and additional rates being imposed upon him and at the same time the Government insist that he exercises restraint as a wage-earner. That again is totally unrealistic.
If anyone requires some more eloquent commentary than I can give he has only to look at the Budget. The local authorities are selling housing, welfare and education, so they are to have an extra £10 million. If they were selling icecream and pop-corn they would have got £110 million from the Budget. That is the measure of the Government's policies.
No wonder ratepayers everywhere are up on arms. They judge correctly that the Government are to blame for their predicament. The ratepayers will deal with this Government in the forthcoming local elections. In the meantime on their behalf the Opposition intend to censure the Government tonight.

4.53 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from 'government' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof, 
endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to make a substantial increase in the rate support grant to local authorities to enable their essential services to develop at a reasonable rate; welcomes the help to be given to domestic rate payers both by the biggest ever increase in the domestic element of rate support grant, and by the special relief for those worst hit by revaluation; and calls upon local authorities to support Her Majesty's Government's measures to counter inflation by avoiding unnecessarily high rate levies.
As the House knows, the cost of providing local government services is shared between the central Government and the local councils; that is to say, between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The ratepayer's share is again divided between the domestic ratepayer and industrial, commercial and other miscellaneous ratepayers. But before considering how and in what proportions the costs should be divided, I am sure that the public would wish Parliament and the Government to consider the bounds within which local government expenditure can be contained. There will always be a conflict between the alliance of Ministers and

local councils to provide the best local government services and to expand those services, and the general body of taxpayers and ratepayers who naturally do not want to pay more taxes and more rates.
This limitation of the total rate bill was examined last autumn as usual in the discussions between the Government and the local authority associations in settling the rate support grant, which is the taxpayers' contribution to local government expenditure. The basic figure that has to be agreed in those discussions is the figure of relevant expenditure—which is expenditure upon the great majority of local government services.
Last autumn that figure was settled at £5,216 million, that being the total expenditure of local government on the great majority of its services. Inevitably that is an increase upon the total rate bill for the current year. I think that everyone recognises that there is an annual growth in local government services and therefore an annual growth in expenditure. On that occasion the local authorities wanted at first a further increase of £36·5 million. The difference between the Government and the local authority associations was subsequently reduced to a figure of £26·5 million, which is not a great difference in a matter of £5,000 million odd.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) is not quite accurate when he says that the Government's duty in considering local government expenditure is to maintain local government services, to expand them, and to keep down the cost to the ratepayer. It is to keep down the cost in general, both to the ratepayer and to the taxpayer, who contributes the 60 per cent.
In arriving last autumn at that figure of £5,216 million relevant expenditure, neither the Government nor the local authority associations professed to gaze into the crystal ball. Normally in the following winter there is a Rate Support Grant Increase Order which takes into account any increases in wages, the cost of goods and interest rates during the year. But the point is that central Government and local government sit down together to consider what should be the total expenditure on local government services.
The figure for relevant expenditure on which the rate support grant settlement for 1973–74 was based took into account the pay awards up to November last. The hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned a substantial amount in respect of pay awards in Birmingham. The rate support grant took into account all the pay awards of teachers and of manual workers up to that time. There have not been any substantial pay awards since November of last year. So to a great extent that item is taken into account in the rate support grant, and that takes us up to the commencement of phase 1 of the counter-inflation policy —the start of the wage freeze. It also took into account the demands for improvement and development of local government services, especially those which the Government had been directly encouraging. It allowed for more teachers and policemen. It allowed for an increase in expenditure on social services of as much as 20 per cent, over the coming two years. It allowed for loan charges relating to the services in the relevant expenditure. With those kinds of reasonable allowances the Government urged local authorities to practice economies and restraints in expenditure.
In view of the need to intensify the counter-inflation policy we renewed that request to individual local authorities by means of the so-called monitoring procedure, which consisted merely of asking local authorities to let us know for what expenditure they were budgeting in the year 1973–74 and what their rate poundage would be.
As in the rate support grant negotiations, I am happy to say that we have had the greatest co-operation from local authorities. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman called this a ludicrous monitoring proposal or procedure with meaningless public relations. It has been an extremely happy procedure in that what he considered to be a failure of the procedure I consider to be a success. I was pleased to find that, on the whole, local authorities were not being extravagant and had taken heed of our urgings during the rate support grant negotiations.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, did not give way, and we are short of time.

Mr. Atkinson: Before the right hon. Gentleman starts singing the Government's praise, may I relate the experience of the London borough of Haringey? On 26th February the London borough of Haringey submitted to the Government the information for which it had been asked. The Government did not reply to the council until 11.30 a.m. on 12th March—they knew that the rate for the borough was to be announced that afternoon—when they asked the council to reduce its expenditure by £660,000. At 11.30 in the morning they asked the council to have another look at its expenditure. Is that a serious operation or merely a political stunt?

Mr. Page: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he may make the speech which he has made in an intervention. I do not want to sit down for interruptions as long as that in future.
There has been a shortage of time in these discussions with local authorities, but whenever an authority has informed my Department sufficiently soon of the date on which it hopes to fix the rate poundage, we have made every effort to confer with it well before that time. There have been occasions when conferences have had to take place by telephone, not by letter, and, indeed, by personal contact.
I will give the House the figures. Of 1,419 authorities only 33 had not replied up to yesterday. As a result of our request to a number of the 1,386 who had replied to think again, 125 have reduced their proposed expenditure. The reductions so far recorded as a result of that request amount to over £8 million. I have no doubt that many more than those 125 have responded well to the general call by the Government in their counter-inflation policy. So much for the total local government expenditure.
I turn now to the division of that total between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. In the rate support grant for this coming year the Government are contributing 60 per cent, towards the relevant expenditure on local government services. That is £400 million more than the contribution in the current year, which is certainly a substantial figure by any


reckoning. That was certainly intended to take into account the desirable expansion of local government services, the realisation that there had been inflation in the past year, not wholly taken into account, perhaps, in the increase order, and a real effort to meet what we recognised would be an increase in expenditure on local government services. On the division between one kind of ratepayer and another, the domestic element has been increased by 50 per cent, bringing it up to a subsidy of 6p on the rate poundage which any local authority chooses to fix.
So, on the first part of the motion, which
regrets the additional financial burdens being imposed upon substantial numbers of ratepayers by Her Majesty's Government's failure to control inflation
there is a threefold answer. First, the Government are indeed controlling inflation by their counter-inflation policy. Secondly, they took into account the inflation, so far as it had momentum when the rate support grant was settled, by the extra £400 million in the grant. Thirdly, the normal procedure for dealing with current inflation is by the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order later in the year. Indeed, that procedure was always adopted by the Labour Government, except in one year when they failed to bring in such an order.
The increase relating to interest charges will be upon loans raised since last November. That comparatively small figure will be taken into account in a Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order.
The motion complains of 
such measures as the Housing Finance Act".
As the House knows, income to a housing authority's revenue account comes from rents, rates and subsidies. Under the Housing Finance Act, if rent income is sufficient to balance expenditure there are no contributions from either rates or subsidies. If not, the deficit is met either by subsidy with an associated contribution from the rate fund, or by a compulsory rate fund contribution, or by both.
I recognise that certain local authorities have difficulty where their rents are already up to fair rent levels and they cannot count on any increased rent

income over the next three years when the contributions will be rising by 5 per cent, steps. But there have been some fairly substantial subsidies to local authorities to assist them with their housing problems, particularly to those which have the great problem of urban renewal. The rising costs subsidy, for example, will be of substantial help. Under the previous system no subsidy was available to meet increased costs arising from higher interest rates. The increased costs had to be met by either higher rents or a bigger rate contribution to the account. That will not be so in future.
There are also the subsidies, again under the Housing Finance Act, for payment to the rate fund, not to the housing revenue account. I have in mind the slum clearance subsidy which meets 75 per cent, of an authority's net costs of slum clearance activities. Therefore, there is quite a substantial subsidy and grant on the other side of the Housing Finance Act account.
The motion refers to the big cities and
deplores the worsening financial plight of the big cities ".
The hon. Member for Small Heath scoffed at a comment I made about an increase in the rate support grant to Birmingham compared with the previous year. It is important to realise that each of the big cities, and Newcastle—which did not go with the other six to see the Prime Minister—received quite substantial increases in rate support grant compared with last year. I have mentioned the Birmingham figure. Bristol received £2⅔ million more rate support grant this year than last year. Leeds received £5¼ million more this year than last year. Liverpool received £3 million more, Manchester £3½ million more, Newcastle £1¾ million more and Sheffield £6 million more. Bristol, Sheffield and Leeds were given a substantial increase. Bristol received a resources element of rate support grant for the first time ever.
We have met, on the figures worked out last November for the rate support grant, quite a substantial part of the problem of the big cities. We have provided an increase in the rate support grant in every case. But I recognise that there is a worsening in the financial plight of the big cities. The House will know that my right hon. Friend the previous


Secretary of State for the Environment set up a study on the six towns. Of course, not only the big cities have problems; the smaller ones do. However, three big cities were chosen, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Lambeth, which was selected to represent London. Of the large towns we chose Oldham, Rother-ham and Sunderland.
The studies are on a scale of partnership between central and local government that has never occurred before. The studies are throwing up some useful information, on which we hope to base the revision of the formula for rate support grant as well as a lot of other assistance to the cities.
That is only one point, which is of immense value, that is coming from the studies. Although the cities have benefited from the rate support grant this year, it does not take into account their special problems; namely, urban renewal and increased social services. I give the assurance that we are proposing to amend the formula to take into account difficulties of that sort in both the big cities and the large towns. I must proceed with discussions with the local authority associations to get the right formula.
The motion mentions aid to domestic ratepayers. This year, whilst the rate bill will go up, domestic ratepayers will received a direct benefit to tide them over the transition period for this one year. The jump would not have been so great if revaluation had taken place five years ago instead of 10 years ago. For that reason we wish to assist those whose rate bill will go up next year compared with the current year.
The circular which we distributed shows a number of examples. For example, an increase in the rate bill of £40 in £100 will attract, on the basis of certain figures, a contribution of about £12. That is the sort of scale on which the assistance is to be given. I agree that it is not a great scale. We are not cushioning against all the increase attributable to revaluation. We think that the increase is fair and just in many cases. However, it is assistance direct to the ratepayer.
In the amendment we ask that the House

endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to make a substantial increase in the rate support grant to local authorities
I have explained the very substantial increase in grant which has been given for the year 1973–74 for the purpose of enabling the essential services to develop at a reasonable rate. We ask the House to welcome the help to be given to domestic ratepayers in the form of the biggest ever increase in the domestic element of rate support grant, which goes up to 6p, and by the special relief for those worse hit by revaluation. We ask the local authorities to support Her Majesty's Government's measures to counter inflation by avoiding unnecessarily high rate levels. I assure the House that we are having co-operation in that request.
What of the future? I have mentioned the ordinary procedure of an increase order to take account of inflation during the year 1973–74. That may be unnecessary if the Government's counter-inflation policy is successful. The House will know that in April 1974 the rates will be relieved of certain local government services, which now cost about £350 million, such as personal health and water. A local government finance Bill will be presented which will amend the rate support grant formula. It will bring about a fairer distribution of the grant. If the legislative programme delays the presentation of the Bill—and we have reason to think that that might be so because of an announcement earlier today about Northern Ireland legislation—the House and the local authorities might find it convenient if we issued a White Paper, to which might be attached a draft of the Bill, to indicate the legislation which we have in mind.
Local authorities already have some ways in which to supplement normal rates—for example, the rating of empty premises. I was surprised to find recently that at present only 59 local authorities raise rates on empty premises. Between them that rating raises £5¼ million at quite a small cost. I should have thought that if all the 1,400 local authorities rated empty premises we might have multiplied £5¼ million by about 25 and produced about £130 million. I commend that form of rating to local authorities. Perhaps we shall see that being done more under the legislation which will be introduced.
I know that many people wish to see additional revenue-raising powers in the hands of local councils. It is argued that the Government should allow them to supplement the rates by some direct taxation, such as a local income tax or a poll tax, or by some indirect taxation, such as a local petrol or beer tax, or by such a pleasant form of extraction of money as a local lottery or sweepstake. I think that the majority of hon. Members would be content to permit local councillors to provide that sort of fund-raising fun if they wished to do so. Of course, there is the risk that any tax supplementary to rates may become additional to rates. I do not think that that would be very popular. What the majority of people are demanding, I think, is a more equitable spread of the burden of rates according to the resources of the occupying household. To this the Government are giving earnest attention. I ask the House to reject the motion and accept the amendment.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I feel slightly upset about the amount of talk that there has been about large cities and large towns. I want to be a little parochial and talk about a medium-sized city, Stoke-on-Trent. I told Mr. Speaker that I would make my speech brief, so I want to speak only about the impact of revaluation.
My main thesis is quite simple—that, even after the additional aid that they have given, what the Government have done is fundamentally unjust. It is unjust between local authorities and between individuals within each local authority area. When we talk about the increase in local government expenditure, we should recognise that this issue is not worthy of discussion. Certainly since most local authorities have been monitored and have been given a clean sheet, presumably their expenditure has the Government's blessing.
The big problem, of course, is very simple. Whereas the expenditure of Stoke-on-Trent has risen by 18 per cent., the rates have risen by 23 per cent. We have had a lot of talk about the domestic element of the rate support grant, but what has not been stressed is that, as a consequence of revaluation, the grant to

an authority like Stoke has been substantially reduced by £750,000 and we have had no redress for that.
I want to deal with the great burden which in certain cases—Stoke-on-Trent is one—has fallen on the domestic ratepayer. This burden has come about for two reasons. The first is the switch between the industrial ratepayer, whose rates have risen by a magnificent 6 per cent., and the domestic ratepayer, whose rates have risen by 43 per cent. If there is any element of justice in this, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain it.
This is an admirable team dealing with the debate. The Minister for Local Government and Development, a right hon. Gentleman who is a gentleman in every sense of the word, always opens the batting. He pours the oil to calm the troubled waters or uses the healing balm, or whatever other metaphor one wants to use, and then the Under-Secretary, who resents any criticism, comes in at the end with a barbed tipped with vitriol. It should be the other way around.
Simply in money terms, the situation that I have described has placed on the ratepayers of Stoke, before the Government's recent gesture, an additional burden of £1,300,000, only £300,000 of which is met by this little bit of help.
The other aspect is the appalling inequality of burden experienced by domestic ratepayers in a city like Stoke. Part of the reason, although the right hon. Gentleman would never admit it, is the fact, to use the technically elegant language of The Economist, that some members of the Inland Revenue have "boobed" as they did in 1963. Then, of course, they lapsed because they got the rateable values of flats all wrong. This time they forgot to increase the statutory deduction. They left it the same, despite all the inflation of the last 10 years. Being humanitarian, I hope that not too many of them have been sacked. But this is one of the reasons for this terrible situation.
I should like to give two figures. Houses in Stoke with previous rateable values of £36 have had them raised by nearly four times, whereas a house with £106 rateable value has had it increased by two-and-a-half times. The consequence of this—-having a house with a rateable value of £106, I am very happy about it—is that,


even after the Government have assisted us, the poorer people living in houses with low rateable values still face a 44 per cent, increase, whereas I shall get a credit. I am sure that that is not social justice.
As for council houses, even after the Government's help, at the lower end of the scale, pre-war council houses will have their rateable values raised by 46 per cent., and at the other end of the scale the rise will be 32 per cent. This has produced serious social injustice, and I am surprised that the Government did nothing to put it right.
But it has also done something else. It has given rise to bogus arguments about which are the efficient and which the inefficient authorities. Where some authorities have kept their rates level as a consequence of purely fortuitous circumstances, they point themselves out as the efficient authorities. But these claims are totally irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
The prices and incomes policy, of course, is one big laugh, and I will not go into it.
Perhaps because I have been in local government for 21 years I have an affection for the rating system. Whatever bright ideas the boys in the Civil Service produce, they will never get rid of this system of taxation, which produces nearly £1,700 million a year. I hope that they do not. But this Government have brought the rating system into disrepute, and that is a great pity.
I am asking the Government to give local authorities yet another subsidy so that they pay not half of anything over a 10 per cent, increase but the whole of it. Even if they did that, of the 91,000 houses in Stoke, 86,000, including 29,000 corporation houses, would still face a rates increase of more than 24 per cent, and 37,000 of them would face an increase of more than 36 per cent. That is unjust and is bringing the whole of the Government's prices and incomes policy into disrepute.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) was speaking, I wanted to interrupt to ask about the Opposition's present policy on education.

Mr. Denis Powell: That would have taken me another three days.

Mr. Ridsdale: That may be. The question I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman was whether it was the Opposition's intention, one day, to honour the obligation they gave in the 1966 General Election when they said that it would be their policy when they formed a Government to take a large part of teachers' salaries off the rates and make them a national charge. I hope that that question will be answered today.
In Essex we face a 24 per cent, increase in rates. Half of that is due to rising costs, one quarter is due to loss of revenue because of reorganisation, and one quarter arises because of improvement in the service. I ask my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to say what talks he has had with the Essex education authority and whether he has been able to help that authority over the loss of revenue, which is certainly placing a particular difficult burden at present upon the domestic ratepayer.
The question about which I really want to talk this afternoon would be more easily answered not by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary but by a Treasury Minister. The main question confronting ratepayers as a whole is whether they are prepared to face the huge educational charge which is being placed upon many people who are not able to pay this increasing charge. It is becoming more and more a very heavy burden on them.
We face an unprecedented bill for Government spending as a result of national policies, particularly the spending on education. The total of local government expenditure which attracted Government grant in 1973–74 was £5,216 million. The rate support grant for 1969–70 was £2,976 million. In 1970–71 it was £3,128 million.
One cannot help but be disturbed when one sees the vast increase of this bill of over £2,000 million in a few years. That is why I feel sorry for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at his having to reply to the debate because no Treasury Minister is present. This is a big question of policy and not a question about which one can quibble in a debate of this nature.
The commercial and domestic ratepayers have had to find over the last


year £2,000 million. Five years ago they had to find £1,300 million. Fifteen years ago the figure was £400 million. The large portion of this increase is due to the cost of educational spending.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has promised us that in 1980 we shall have 514,000 teachers. I welcome that fact. But what I am concerned about is that 70 per cent, of the cost of education is teachers' salaries and pensions. Is it right that this vast number of teachers, 514,000, should have this money found for them by the domestic ratepayer? Many domestic ratepayers are finding it very difficult to meet their bills because of inflation and other causes.
The number of teachers has increased in 10 years by 100,000, which is more than the number of our pre-war Army, and it will soon be equal to all the Armed Forces together. Would we ever think of putting this kind of bill on the domestic ratepayer? That is why I appeal to the Government to stop thinking about subsidisation through the rate support grant. The kind of policy which the Government are pursuing, which is an inheritance from the previous Government, is causing extravagance. It is not getting value for money in education. It is putting a very unfair burden on the domestic ratepayer.
I certainly welcome the promise of the reform of local government finance. I was very disturbed, however, by the few words about this which my right hon. Friend said. It did not seem to me very much like a reform in local government finance that we may be having. Will we really face up to the question of taking the educational burden off the rates? If the Government continually take the attitude that they have at present, I shall find myself ultimately being forced to vote against them on this matter, because it is an unfair burden which falls on many of my domestic ratepayers.
The Government have it in their power to alter this policy. I hope that they will alter it very soon and will not treat this matter so complacently. It is far fairer that the larger part of this burden should be paid for by people who can afford it and not by those who cannot.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I agree very much with the points made by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). There is no time like the present for him to make his gesture in defiance of the Government, and we look forward to seeing him in the Lobby in support of the censure motion this evening.
I have a particular personal reason for welcoming the debate. We recently had a debate on the rating system, which arose on a Private Member's motion. I was due to speak in that debate on behalf of the Liberal Party, but the aeroplane bringing me from my constituency was two hours late and I did not arrive here in time. That is hardly worth a mention but for the fact that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) were unkind enough to express regret at the absence of a Liberal contribution. However, their grief cannot have been so deep-seated, because they have not thought fit to come to listen to my contribution today. That shows how childish it is to draw attention to the absence of certain other hon. Members.
I have been anxious to make a contribution on this subject for some time, and the motion has enabled me to say something on behalf of the Liberal Party on the problem of rates.
It is right that we should divide our consideration of the problem into two distinct categories—short-term problems and long-term problems. It is right that we should put forward some short-term suggestions to the Government because of the particular situations with inflation, revaluation and the depopulation of city centres which have been occurring over the last couple of years.
I take up the Minister straight away on something that he said about the rating of empty properties. I was very interested in the figure which he gave of the relatively small number of local authorities which are using their power to rate empty properties. Much more should be done in this direction to raise revenue from empty properties.
Is not one of the reasons why there is no real encouragement on local authorities to rate empty properties that any


revenue that they raise from this source is discounted in calculating rate support grant? If that is so, this is something which the Government could put right by positively encouraging local authorities to use their existing powers for rating empty properties as one of the possible methods of raising finance.
Second, the Government ought to consider empowering local authorities to rate land which is already scheduled for development, and to rate it on a sliding scale, after the first year in which no development has occurred, up to a very steep rate, perhaps after three years, when compulsory purchase ought to be available. Apart from adding to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's improvements in bringing development land forward for development, this would be another source of revenue.
Third, the Government ought to give some further relief to the large cities by agreeing to calculate the rate support grant on last year's population figures to help to alleviate the problems faced by the big city centres due to urban depopulation. It is a cruel fact that those local authorities which have been most assiduous in their redevelopment schemes are the authorities which find that their rating potential has fallen in the city centres.
Fourth, and returning to the point made so powerfully by the hon. Member for Harwich, it does not make sense in this day and age, when teachers' salaries are no longer negotiable at different levels by local authorities, for teachers' salaries to continue to be a burden at all on the rating system. If one is looking for ways of trying to make the burden of rates less severe, surely, above everything else, it is a simple matter to transfer them to the national Exchequer. There are certain areas of police expenditure where the same considerations should apply. As long as the rating system continues the Government ought to be willing to look at methods of relieving local authorities of certain financial expenditure.
The Government should consider giving local authorities specific powers to raise income from alternative sources and I hope that when we see the White Paper we shall find that they have considered that. One obvious candidate is motor vehicle taxation. This could be com-

bined with a policy of rating motor vehicles according to areas in which they are kept. The GLC, for example, might welcome a provision of that kind. Although I am not personally in favour of any great extention of public revenue through betting and gaming, as long as it exists it is an area where local authorities might derive benefit.
These are all short-term palliatives, measures which the Government could take this year to help the present situation, but the main point I want to make on behalf of the Liberal Party is that, unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), we have no affection for the rating system. I believe that in the White Paper which the Government will bring forward they will cause great disappointment if they show that they intend to continue the rating system unchanged. I have always been attracted by the thought of a local income tax, but if that is ruled out one can fall back on the stock Liberal position of site value rating, which is more equitable than the present system on properties.
The present system penalises the good property owner who decides to improve his property and his standard of living, by building an extension or making use of house improvement grants. It benefits the slum landlord who can apply for a reduction in his rating liability when his property deteriorates. It leaves unrated empty office blocks in our city centres. A survey in Whitstable by the Rating and Valuation Association showed that if a system of site valuation had been brought into effect there would have been a reduction of about 33 per cent, to 50 per cent, in the rates paid by local householders.
It is to a more radical solution that we must look, and, while we will support the Opposition in the Lobby tonight, we consider that both this Government and the last must stand condemned for having failed to tackle the basic injustices of the rating system.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I am always nervous when we begin to discuss responsibility for expenditure in local government services as between central and local government. To challenge local responsibility is to begin to undermine the whole concept of local government. The essence of local government is accountability, and if that is
 


to exist we must have a system that enables the electors to judge between good housekeeping and otherwise. No arrangements that we come to in the reform of local government must be allowed to interfere with that relationship. No responsible person would advocate such a course.
That is where I depart a little from my own Front Bench colleagues on their scheme to monitor increases this year. It places in some doubt the responsibility of locally elected representatives. I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the effects that were found when some 125 authorities made reductions which totalled £8 million after Government advocacy. Averages, of course, always present difficulties, but that produced an average figure of roughly £64,000 per authority. It would be interesting to know, and perhaps later when an analysis is found possible we could get to know, what services were affected by those reductions.
To ask local authorities to engage in this exercise is not generally rewarding. There are no sanctions which the central Government could or should bring against local government. I took the point raised in an intervention during my right hon. Friend's speech about the circumstances which arose when the Government were making representations at 11.30 in the morning before a rating decision which had to be taken at 2.30 the same day. I do not think that is an appropriate way to conduct public affairs. There has been no great merit in the whole concept of monitoring and there was not adequate time to handle something like that even if one agreed with the principles, which I think I have made it clear I do not.
We heard in the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that average rates have increased by 11 per cent, according to figures produced by the Rating and Valuation Association. But the averages cover up tremendous differences. I understand that Derbyshire has increased its rating precept by less than 1 per cent. Essex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) told us, had an average increase of 24 per cent., Lancashire 8 per cent, and Worcestershire nearly 26 per cent. That reinforces the fact that in local government there is an

almost infinite variety of place and circumstance and it is an unrewarding exercise to pass any judgment on comparatives.
I have an example from my constituency in a brief comment taken from a letter from the clerk of the Towcester Rural District Council which he addressed to the Secretary of State. The letter was dated 23rd February. It said:
The proposed rate levy for 1973–74 represents an increase of 38 per cent, over that for 1972-73 and is due entirely to the reduction from 4705 per cent, to 30·54 per cent, in the amount of rateborne expenditure met from the resources element of the Rate Support Grant, since the whole of the Council's increased expenditure due to inflation and other factors, will be met by the appropriation of some £49,000 from balances.
That is an unexpected result of revaluation. It is strange that there were no predictions that there would be variations of that magnitude. I think that the homework could not have been done adequately if there was no foreknowledge of such variations.
There was a bit of a song-and-dance act from the leaders of the six largest cities in the country when they saw the Prime Minister. The wording of the motion that we are discussing deplores
the worsening financial plight of the big cities 
but this plight is nothing new. It is a situation that has been growing over recent years and I cannot think it has come suddenly to a head for the next financial year.
I am sure that there is recognition of the growing problems in the great cities. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Marsden) emphasised this point when the House last discussed rates. The problem of depopulation of city centres has been with us not merely over the last two years, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, but over a much longer period.
Having examined the rate support grant arrangements, which were developed as far back as 1966, I believe that we should have considered proposals for reorganisation of the support grant procedures, having regard to the increasing problems which the cities are now facing. Things have been allowed to run on without any adequate consideration being brought to bear on the overall solution.
There is no instant cure for these shortcomings. The rate support grant is a sophisticated instrument which has served us well, but it must be said that in the last couple of years it has served us less well than it did in previous years.
This problem was referred to in The Times on 22nd November 1972 in an article by Mr. Peter Jay, economic editor of that newspaper. In referring to the study undertaken by Godley and Rhodes of the Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, Mr. Jay said:
it is difficult to measure how far differences in local unit costs are due to different degrees of local efficiency, which should not be compensated, and how far they are due to independent factors (such as higher costs in London), which deserve to be 'equalised'.
This is a difficult problem, but we were assured in a recent circular, No. 34/73 of 13th March, that
an improved formula should be used for the distribution of grant to the new authorities from April 1974.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend give an assurance on this matter this afternoon. Tremendous work is involved and time is short. My right hon. Friend made a positive point about the rating of empty premises, which depends so much on local authorities. Many authorities have found that it does not pay to collect rates on empty properties. This is not the case in other parts of the country, but certainly some authorities face that situation.
There are three urgent tasks ahead of us. The first is the review of the rate support grant formula. The second is the review of the rating system to see whether it can be a viable system of revenue raising for local government services. Many people are sceptical on this point. My right hon. Friend referred to the ability to pay and how that requirement can be built into the rating system as we know it today. We have yet to see what will happen. Thirdly, there is the question of additional resources. We require a far more buoyant response to changed circumstances in the rating system, rather than a static attitude.
I was pleased to hear about the consultations which are being carried on by the Government with the local authority associations. I have no doubt

that they will carry their consultations outside local government and will consult, for example, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, a body which represents a well-informed branch of public servants. I hope that the net will be cast widely to take in the tremendous problems of local government financing. So many variables are involved that it is difficult to devise a formula to meet the tremendous variety of circumstances, but I hope that nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of the solution of this problem, since solution is essential to the welfare and viability of local government.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It is generally agreed that many local authorities are in a serious position and that help is urgently needed lest services suffer. I emphasise that this problem applies not only in large cities but in towns of medium size. The burden falls on the domestic ratepayer—the onus has been taken off the industrial ratepayer—and bears particularly heavily on council house tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said, there is no justice in the Government's proposals.
It must be agreed that a certain amount of help was given in the Budget, but in the light of the overall problem it was no more than a fleabite, amounting to only £10 million of assistance. This figure must be compared with the figure of £3,130 million of total Government grant to local government.
I represent a town comprising nearly 120,000 people. Originally the finance committee proposed to increase rates by over 30 per cent., but I understand that it is now talking in terms of an increase of around 15 per cent. This will mean a severe restriction of services and a limit on expansion, and it is nowhere near the 5 per cent. originally laid down by the Prime Minister as the yardstick for increases. Following the Chancellor's Budget Statement we shall receive the paltry sum of £11,375. It appears that 3,165 ratepayers will benefit by an average of £3·59. Such meagre assistance will cause resentment in my area, and I am sure that similar sums will be resented in many other districts.
In his Budget Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the effects of revaluation. He said:
the Government therefore propose to phase the effects for those hardest hit by meeting half the cost above 10 per cent. of any increases in domestic rate bills in 1973–74 which are attributable solely to the effects of revaluation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March 1973; Vol 852, c. 268.]
Out of that statement came the mighty mouse of £10 million.
The formula for paying that sum is complicated. The Association of Municipal Corporations is right to comment that it is inadequate, complicated and confusing. That association suggested a way out. It is said that a limit should be placed on the increase which any domestic ratepayer had to bear and that a flat percentage should be applied over the whole country. It thought that a figure of 10 to 15 per cent. would be acceptable. I align this with the constructive suggestion made in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who said in the debate on the rating system that the Government have power under the Local Government Act 1966 to increase rate support grant if they find that
an unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs and remuneration."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1041.]
At no time has such an intervention been more necessary and more justified than it is now. This need to assist local authorities is particularly urgent when in the Budget the Chancellor has announced a concession of £110 million in respect of confectionery. There was in addition the concession of no less than £300 million for those with an income of over £4,000 a year. Urgent action is now necessary to help our local authorities.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) referred to the £10 million help to ratepayers as a "fleabite" and then a "mighty mouse". It is an interesting example of the thinking of Labour Members that they can brush aside so lightly such considerable sums of money. It is also a little ungracious of them to sneer at this assistance which is necessary only because they took the action when in

Government five years ago of postponing revaluation. This should be said a little more often.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) admitted the other day that the revaluation was postponed because he, as a cynical politician, had calculated that it could do nothing but lose votes. Let us put these factors into perspective. We must recognise that the postponement of revaluation, rating relief and many other devices are all really designed as short-term measures to overcome the anomalies and unfairnesses of the rating system. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who expressed the hope that before long we would see a much more radical measure designed to reform the whole of the rating system.
Like the hon. Member, I disagree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) who must be almost unique in having an affection for the rating system. Of all the forms of taxation I, and I am sure the majority of people, consider it to be the most unfair in its impact, cumbersome in administration, expensive to collect, and altogether a very archaic tax system.
Successive Governments have tried to introduce devices to make it rather more fair. There have been schemes for monthly instalments, the rent rebate scheme, the domestic element factor, the rate relief help which is now being offered and the postponement of revaluation. There is also the high level of rate support grant which the Government are introducing. All of these are aimed at lessening the effect of rate increases on the ratepayer. The simple fact is that these do very little to help in the long term. The tax is founded on a complete fiction and the search for a substitute for the tax, for a local tax, is founded on a fallacy. The fiction consists of the idea of notional rental values. The more we try to adjust that system the more nonsensical it becomes. I do not believe that anyone trying to devise a modern tax system would found a property tax at all, let alone found it on something which is purely a product of the imagination.
The fallacy is that it is necessary to have local accountability through a local


source of revenue. I do not believe that local democracy depends upon our finding some source of locally-raised revenue. What we are talking about in local democracy is accountability to the domestic ratepayer, in other words the voter. We should examine the facts of the present situation. At the moment the domestic ratepaper contributes only 14 per cent of total local government expenditure. Such expenditure has soared considerably over the years and just as that has risen so has the relative contribution of the domestic ratepayer declined.
Last year local government spent £6,270 million to which the domestic ratepayer contributed 14 per cent. Ten years ago the gross revenue of local government was £2,000 million to which the domestic ratepayer contributed 18 per cent. In other words year after year, with every new device we introduce, the amount paid by the local domestic ratepayer reduces. I do not believe that, because the balance of that money is received from the central Government, our local councillors are therefore profligate, inefficient or incompetent. If they waste money in that sector they will be held accountable by the ratepayers just as if the money was being raised through the rates. I wonder when a party last lost control of a council just because it put up the rates. I suspect it was a long time ago.
This has long ceased to be a major factor in local politics. That is not surprising. Nearly all the money which is administered locally comes either from the central Government or is money raised and spent locally, and much of that money is spent in a way dictated by national policies. This trend is not likely to end. Rather it is a continuing trend. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) put forward a strong case for a large element of educational expenditure to be transferred back to the national Exchequer. I would argue that that should be done with all educational expenditure. We know that water and sewerage functions are soon to be transferred to the new regional water authorities and the cost of funding those will obviously at some stage move out of the rating system. The same applies to a great deal of health expenditure. I tabled a Question the other day asking what

would be the effect on local government expenditure if water and sewerage, health and education were taken out of the rating system. The answer was that local government expenditure would be reduced by 60 per cent.
That means in practice that if we transferred such functions back to the central Government we would reduce the local government revenue requirement to about £2,000 million, the balance coming from its ordinary trading revenue. At least half of that £2,000 million comes from the commercial ratepayer. Although it could be argued that the commercial ratepayer could perhaps pay it through corporation tax or some other source, I can see no good grounds for changing the present system. What we have to look for is another source of raising the £1,000 million, equivalent to the amount paid at present by the domestic ratepayer.
I asked a further Question about this the other day. I asked what would be required if we abolished that and raised a similar amount in equal proportions from VAT and income tax. The answer was 3½p in the pound on income tax and about an extra 3 per cent. on VAT. I would argue that we could increase income tax by 3½p but leave VAT alone and progressively, over two or three years, use the general buoyancy of the tax system to replace the balance of local government requirements.
It is not nearly as difficult as some people make out, as long as we accept the fact that no longer does a local tax play an important part in our financial system and that the more we search for a local substitute for rates, the more complicated life will become, whether it is a local VAT sales tax, a local income tax or a lottery. Every one of them can be rejected for a host of reasons. Just as we are now introducing a system whereby local authorities will have a transport grant allocated to them to spend as they think fit in terms of bus services, road requirements and so on, I do not believe that it is beyond our capabilities to devise a system whereby every town, city and new district should receive a proportion of revenue, perhaps on a per capita basis, which they could spend at their discretion on the services they will continue to fulfil. They would be just as accountable to the local voters and they would be readily


accused of waste if they were careless about spending that money.
This is one suggestion. It is not necessarily the right one. However, I hope very much that, whichever party is in power, we will stop tinkering with the problem and will face up to the basic principles of reform and end the rating system in the next few years. It certainly could be done. For that reason I hope that we will not be faced with a Local Government Finance Reform Bill this Session as my right hon. Friend earlier intimated might be the case. Rather do I hope that the second alternative—a White Paper—will be adopted so that we can consider this once more. Better still, let us have a Green Paper as a discussion document, because the last one was not a very helpful contribution to the reform of the rating system.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: There seemed to be some inconsistency in the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) because at one time he said that it must be a long time since any election was lost as a result of a rate increase and then he went on to ascribe motives for the postponement of revaluation when Labour was in power. He has fallen into the trap into which all politicians sometimes fall, that of believing his own propaganda. The revaluation was postponed because at that time the Government were trying to operate a prices and incomes policy.
I was shocked by the remarks of the Minister when he spoke about the future Local Government Finance Bill because I thought that the burden of his remarks —and he put it rather shamefacedly— was that it would be "business as usual". After all the complaints about the rating system, the Government are to bring forward a slightly tarted up version of the same thing. This is to be deplored. To a certain extent the Government have recognised the problems of the big cities, especially in the provision of roads and housing, but they have done little to help them. The 60 per cent. which has been mentioned is only an average and in Bristol only 40 per cent. comes from Government support.
Because of the shortness of time I will deal only with revaluation. During the

debates on rate rebate schemes I pointed out some of the anomalies and said that the Government had let down the people by not postponing revaluation. It seems that the general public regard the revaluation as extremely unfair. After inspecting the new valuation lists, they have no confidence in how it is being done. It seems to be very much a rule of thumb. A great deal of the revaluation is done on a theoretical basis. Some work has been done out of doors. At one time a corner property was given different assessments because the work had been done on two sides of a triangle by two different people.
The kind of traffic chaos in parts of my constituency because of the failure to complete the M5 bridge has not been taken into account. People do not realise this and they do not appeal. It seems that it is always the ratepayer who has to challenge a revaluation.
The anomalies pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) are quite grotesque. I give one example to show that rating differentiates not only between one house and another but between one area and another. It will hit far harder houses and flats in, for instance, Hartcliffe in the south than Westbury-on-Trym in the north. This is to happen at a time of freeze when the Government say that there must be restraint on incomes and people must be prepared to accept a standstill, yet at the same time a burden such as this is being loaded on to people least able to afford it.
The people of Bristol will not get help from the Government's measures unless they are facing an increase of 37 per cent. This help is too little and too late. A far better solution to the whole problem would have been postponement of revaluation.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: It is rather strange that the problems itemised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) were exactly the same under the Socialist Government as they are today. Although I cannot commend the Government because these factors still apply, I condemn the Opposition for the hypocrisy of their motion. The things that were mentioned by the hon. Member for


Small Heath applied with the same force under his Government as they do today. Wage increases are still with us. That surely emphasises the need for the Government's intention through their incomes policy to reduce wage increases, which bear heavily on local government in Birmingham. Distribution of Government help was as bad in the days of the Labour Government and the cost to Birmingham was £1 million in one year.

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kinsey: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. I was on the council at that time, and the interest rates imposed by the Socialists were as high as they had ever been. We have reduced interest charges under this Government and only now are they beginning to climb back.
The hon. Member mentioned a £3 million increase in debt charges. That must be due to the heavy debt problem in the city of Birmingham. In the statistics for the city we see that in 1971 £437,834,417 was outstanding. That debt represented £403 16s. 9d. per head. If we are to do anything to redress the position, our object should be to reduce that indebtedness. The Conservative administration did that when it was in office but the situation is now being busily redressed in the other direction.
We sold council houses and other properties within the ownership of the city to reduce our indebtedness and there were objections from the Socialist side. Now, the Socialists have taken control and are busily building up the stock of properties owned by the corporation. That of course means increasing the indebtedness which they say they wish to control. If the suggested policies of buying more rented properties in the cities are implemented, there will be an enormous debt burden. There is a letter in today's Birmingham Post about the suggested policy of the Socialists for free travel which would cost £25 for every family each year. This would mean an increase of the debt that the Socialists condemn but to which they would add so heavily.
I join in the objection expressed today to the way in which Government help is distributed to local authorities. This is why cities are doing so badly but it is not remarkable that other authorities are

not complaining. It is right this should be so, because in some areas, to quote the chief agent of the Birmingham Conservative Association, they are "tickled to death" at the help given by the Government. Of course they are in no position to complain. This fairer distribution would prevent the Government coming under so much fire were they trying to remedy the situation.
Birmingham and other cities have been badly hit by revaluation. My right hon. Friend must face this fact. He knows that I am not happy about revaluation because with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) I came to see him about the position. The help given in the Budget was really a waste. It was not needed. I join with an hon. Friend who said that £10 million was a considerable sum of money in any language and not to be dismissed lightly, but we could have got away without it. The Birmingham newspaper suggested that we should have a standstill. If it were the fact that we should have this help simply because the rest of the country wanted it, an order should have been brought in to adjust the position in relation to industrial and domestic ratepayers. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at that part of the problem.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have one comment to make on the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey). Apparently he has never heard of what was referred to at the time as the Crossman bounty. It was brought in in 1966 and it was ultimately abolished by the present Government without anything being put in its place.
During those years of the Labour Government the local Conservative Party in Liverpool boasted at every municipal election that it had been able to keep the rate at the same level. Never once did the Conservative members say that that was because of the financial aid given to local authorities by the Labour Government. Perhaps they did not argue in Birmingham in the same way as they did in Liverpool. It was always the local Labour Party in Liverpool which pointed out the reality of the situation and demonstrated why the rates were kept at a constant or reasonable level.
In the few moments available to me I want to deal with the problems facing the big cities, Liverpool in particular. Earlier this afternoon the Minister admitted that there was a serious problem in the big cities. He said that the Government were taking a further look at the situation and that later they would come up with proposals to overcome the difficulties.
If the Government recognise the difficulties it is no good their saying that at some time in the future they will come forward with their proposals. There will be a hiatus between now and the time when the review is completed and the new proposals are brought forward. In the meantime, the situation of the big cities will get worse and their rate problems will get bigger.
In a letter dated 22nd December to the Prime Minister, Alderman Sefton, the leader of the Liverpool City Council, said:
If we may take as a starting point the Government's expectation that rates should so far as possible be increased next year by no more than 5 per cent., we can calculate that on this basis our rate increase for the coming year should be no more than 6p. The facts are, however, that if we do no more than ensure that the standards we have reached this year are maintained, and only provide in addition for commitments for debt charges that we cannot avoid, our rate increase as we forecast it at the present time would be of the order of 31 p … we in Liverpool must think in terms of over £73 million next year as compared with £60 million 12 months ago. By far the biggest element in this increase of £13 million is inflation, which alone accounts for £7 million … but a local authority which hopss to be in a position to claim a full share in any increased Government grant must be able to count upon a stable population situation.
In the last 10 years we have lost 130,000 of our population. We have built vast new council estates on the outskirts of our city. No one would suggest that Liverpool City Council, under both Tory and Labour administrations, has not done its job effectively in building the houses that are required. With extra Government aid, and perhaps with a different system of Government financing, we could have done even better, but the point is that we have done the job, and it is because we have done it that we are now faced with a serious problem. We must provide our people with the necessary welfare services, but even to maintain them at their present level presents a serious problem.

Mr. Frank Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the land taken for motorways, river crossings and other schemes has contributed to the situation that 130,000 people have left the city?

Mr. Heffer: That has been a contributory factor in the loss of population. There has been a certain amount of Government assistance towards the building of roads, but in the long run we have lost some of our population and this has meant a loss of revenue to the city.
I ask the Government to accept the plea made by Alderman Sefton, the leader of Liverpool City Council. In the letter from the Prime Minister to Alderman Sefton it was clearly indicated that further assistance would be provided in the autumn of 1974. Alderman Sefton has said that he would like the date brought forward to the autumn of 1973. That is not asking for a great deal. It is merely asking for the date to be brought forward by one year so that as from the autumn of this year we may get greater assistance than we are receiving now.
That is the plea which I am asking the Government to accept. We have a problem which is recognised by the Government and by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it this afternoon. If our people are not to have this enormous rate burden imposed upon them, the only answer is to get more aid from the Government.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I propose to deal with only two points in the time allocated to me.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for what he said. He is an intelligent lad. He used most of the figures which we have discussed at length. I am grateful to him not only for putting them on record and saving me the trouble of doing so, but also for spelling out some of the facts.
I should like to take up the point made by the Minister in opening the debate about the whole business of monitoring. I protest as strongly as I can on behalf of my local authority, Haringey, at the political chicanery and the way in which the matter was dealt with.
The borough was asked to submit evidence and information to the Government, which it did on 26th February. The Government were not in communication with Haringey until 12th March, the day on which the borough had announced that it would declare its rate. At 11.30 a.m. there was a telephone call from the Department. There was a great deal of publicity in the borough about this. Some character in the Department telephoned suggesting that Haringey was overspending by £660,000 and asked whether the council would like to adjust its rates accordingly.
This appeared in the Press as though, in the opinion of the Government—which I do not believe had considered this in any detail—the Labour authority in Haringey was overspending by £660,000. It is fantastic that somebody should telephone in that way and then leak it to the Press and inform opposition Conservatives that that was the Government's view, even though there had been no discussions and the Government had had the information for more than a fortnight. The Department did not have the decency to inform the council what it proposed to do until the date of the announcement. So much for the monitoring referred to by the Minister. In our opinion it was a political stunt. I hope that it will backfire on the Government and that they will get no mileage out of it.
One would not believe that we were discussing this issue against the background of not only a wage freeze but also a period of rocketing house prices during a period of freeze, as well as increased rents, in our case to the extent of something like £2 million, because the Government have also raised council rates by £890,000 and have reduced housing subsidies by £130,000. So it goes on and it is no wonder that ratepayers are bewildered that the Government should be attempting to convince the people that they are determined to do something about inflation and to minimise the burden to be placed upon them when ratepayers, and council tenants particularly, are on the receiving end to that extent.
We now see a multiplication of the injustices and inequalities of this whole system perpetrated by the Government.

That was why the Labour Government left it alone. Because of the built-in injustices they decided not to proceed at that time with their own ideas.
I wish to make three brief points on our attitude towards what many of us feel should be done. Following on the figures given by the hon. Member for Faversham, with which we concur, it is the belief of many hon. Members on this side of the House that, as a process towards possibly a method of local rating or some other equitable system of assessing local rate funds, there should be a total increase in Government grant of up to something like 75 per cent. of total expenditure. There is a body of opinion inside the Labour Party that believes that the domestic contribution should be reduced from what we believe at the moment to be 14 to 15 per cent., according to the figures given by the hon. Member for Faversham. We believe that no more than about 5 per cent. should be placed upon the domestic ratepayer. Therefore we look upon our proposal as a progressive method of trying to solve some of the inequalities in the present system. I hope that we shall get a commitment from the Labour Party before very long about a massive shift of this kind, reducing the amount paid by the domestic ratepayer to no more than some 5 per cent. of the total required by the local authorities.
In that sense, in this debate we are talking to the wrong people. There should be Treasury Ministers on the Government Front Bench. The things about which we are concerned are the cost of money to local authorities, especially to authorities concerned with urban renewal, and the funding of the cost of education and particularly teachers' salaries. Not only do we need more teachers, but teachers deserve a much better salary structure than they have at the moment. Therefore, this burden should be shifted away from the ratepayer to the central Government. We believe this to be a progressive way of equalising much of the injustice that has been built into the whole system of rate contribution. I hope we are moving towards a solution of the problem, but that solution can be achieved only if the Government give a much greater contribution than they are giving at present.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: This has necessarily been a short debate, but it has been a very interesting debate in that every hon. Gentleman on either side of the House has, to a greater or lesser degree, expressed criticism of the Government. Even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who sits on the other side of the House and is entitled to be critical of our policy, expresses criticism of the Government's policy. A lot of facts, figures, percentages, products of penny rates, reasons and excuses have been presented during the course of the debate. We have heard a lot about what local authorities think of the existing rating system and the present Government policy.
I want to look at this from the point of view of the ordinary ratepayer, because the majority of ratepayers in this country are going to face an increase in their rates over the next 12 months; and very many of them are going to face very substantial increases. The ratepayer cares not whether this results from inadequate rate support grant, from high interest rates or from the effect of revaluation. All he knows is that he has to pay out a lot more money in rates at a time when the Government have almost frozen his income and salary. He sees it as just another example of rising costs which the Government have totally failed to deal with adequately.
While we have been debating the question of rate rises an announcement has been made, I understand, that the Government accept a 10 per cent. increase in the cost of flour and flour products, which is yet another example so far as the ordinary person in the street is concerned of having his wages frozen while the cost of food is going up. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued consistently that when they are dealing with foodstuffs they are not in a position to control the cost of food because rises in the cost of raw materials are beyond their control. Rates are a subject on which the Government could intervene directly in order to prevent any escalation. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that some of the effects of the revaluation would have to be borne by the ratepayer

because he considered that they were fair and just. The hospital workers' claim is fair and just. The gasworkers' claim is fair and just. But the words "fairness" and "justice" do not come in when it is a question of a rate increase resulting from the Government's inability or refusal to act. Then any such increase to be borne by the ratepayer suddenly becomes fair and just.
In the course of the debate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) asked me whether under the Labour Party's policy on education we still propose that teachers' salaries should be borne from national expenditure. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes"; but, of course, we want to discuss this more fully with local government organisations, educational bodies and others. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) spoke of the present rating system and its anomalies. I agree with much that was said, particular by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. But the point of the debate is that we are dealing not with the far distant future but with the present. We are dealing with rates and rate demand notices that will be going out in the next few days. It is on this that we censure the Government for their failure to act to curb the rise in rates at a time when they have a nil norm to be followed by phase 2 of their prices and incomes policy.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite in their amendment to our motion mention the rate support grant. Throughout these debates on rates and prices it has continued to be their boast that they have increased the rate support grant from 58 to 60 per cent. and that more money is going out to local authorities. That is so; but local authorities have to provide more services because the Government tell them to do so. They have to increase the standards of those services which they have to provide, and, therefore, they need more money. So it is an empty boast for hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench and benches opposite to say they are giving more money when they are doing so only because it is essential for local authorities to have that money to carry out their statutory duties.
Little has been said in this debate by the Government Front Bench on the effect of interest rates. Here again in considering the rate support grant given to local authorities it must be remembered that at the present time they have to pay about 9 per cent.—and probably that will be increased in future—for money they necessarily borrow to carry out their civic duties. I believe that at this time last year the rate was in the region of 6 per cent. This, again, is a direct burden which local authorities have to face.
The Government did not mention the non-relevant expenditure to the rate support grant, or expenditure which the Government do not consider relevant. These are such things, for example, as the housing rate fund contribution, the concessionary fares for old people, and transport defects. These are borne 100 per cent. by the local authorities. Are the Government saying that where a city decides, for example, to implement a transport scheme to relieve traffic congestion, the scheme is unnecessary? Of course the scheme is necessary to the local authority conerned, but it will get no relief from the rate support grant for it.
The second claim for consideration in the amendment is that the Government have given special relief for revaluation. The hon. Gentleman said that we were somewhat contemptuous of large figures, especially the £10 million which the Government are spending on this special relief. Yes, we are contemptuous, because that figure represents a product of 0·16p rate taken over England and Wales as a whole.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Irrelevant.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman may say "Irrelevant", but that is the figure.
Recently, the Association of Municipal Corporations proposed that the Government should step in as a ratepayer and pay in any sum greater than a 10 per cent. rise. However, the Government are paying only half of a sum greater than a 10 per cent. rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) rightly pointed out that the poorer one is the more one is hit by revaluation. We heard the same from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport

(Mr. Roy Hughes) and Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks).
Last night I received a resolution from the Kirkby Urban District Council, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, strongly condemning the Government and pointing out the effects of circular 34/73, granting relief to domestic ratepayers on account of revaluation. The council stated that they were irrelevant in Kirkby because of the limited nature of the formula for obtaining relief, with only an insignificant number of people being eligible for relief. That sort of situation can be related time and again.
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said, the figures of relief will be eroded and wiped away by administrative expenditure. Because the Government were so late in producing their proposals, the local authorities had already prepared their rates. If a local authority has a computer, it has to feed into it an alternative programme to deal with the Government's scheme; if it has not got a computer, it has to do it through long manual labour by the staff, spending hours on each rate demand.
As the local authority associations have said, the rate demands will go out on time. If they do not, there is a loss of revenue which has to be met by short-term borrowing. But the price of money for local authorities for a seven-day period is 11¼ per cent., rising to 12 per cent. That will soon wipe away the £10 million which the Government are giving on account of revaluation.
Liverpool suffers from declining population and has great social needs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out. Liverpool estimates that it will need another £11 million this year without increasing a single service. It will require an extra £7 million because of the monitored effect of inflation on the interest rates, the cost of wages and so on, taking account of the pay freeze and phase 2; it will require another £1½ million for special statutory services, including £900,000 which the city has to pay because of the effects of the Housing Finance Act; and another £2½ million relates to rating prospects over which it has no control. Yet Liverpool is to get


not a penny from the Government in its great need.
Alderman Sefton, Sir Robert Thomas and other great civic leaders saw the Prime Minister. One wonders whether their journey was really necessary. Was the Prime Minister listening? Did they waste their time and the ratepayers' money on their fares in order to come to London to see him? The fact is that not a thing of substance has emanated from him or from the Government, and there is no mention in the amendment of the problems of the big cities.
The insult in the amendment comes with the final words asking local authorities to avoid "unnecessarily high rate levies." All local authorities avoid unnecessarily high rate levies. Are the Government aware of the procedure which goes into making a rate? Are they not aware of how, in the competing schemes between the various committees of a local authority, estimates are pruned by each committee, further pruned by the finance committee and maybe still further pruned by the council? That is the procedure. But it seems that the Government can simply get in contact by telephone with the great city of Manchester while the council is deciding upon its rate and tell it to cut £2 million off its estimates. Do the Government think that that is how to deal adequately with local authorities? They did the same with Haringey, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out.
However, many local authorities have ignored the Government. For example, that citadel of Socialism, Kingston-upon-Thames, when told to take £460,000 off the rates, treated the request with the contempt that it deserved and refused to do so. That hotbed of red revolution, Hampshire County Council, was told to take off £3 million; it said that it could not do so and that the Government's proposal was administrative rubbish.
Careful pruning goes on in all local authorities, as the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) hinted when he spoke of the monitoring procedure. But I go further than he did. I say that it is a gratuitous insult to local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, to suggest in the amendment that they would unnecessarily increase their rates.
The Government are tonight facing a motion of censure. No doubt their Whips will attempt to deal with it, no matter who goes into the Lobby. What the Government need to fear is the censure of the ratepayers, who will be able to exercise their power of censure in the GLC and county council elections on 12th April, the metropolitan district elections on 10th May and yet again in the non-metropolitan district elections on 7th June. In those successive votes of censure, the Government will not be able to put their Whips on and the British people will decidedly tell the Government what they think of their present rates policy.

6.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): After a generally quiet debate the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), to his credit, did his best to stir it up in order to justify the extravagant language of the motion. I congratulate him on his effort in the last few moments of his speech. Unfortunately he got some of his facts wrong. I do not complain but perhaps I should let him know that it was important to get in touch with Manchester, by telephone or otherwise, to tell it that the figures on which it was working—its own figures—were £2 million out. Manchester, being a sensible authority, recognised that this was so and agreed to correct them. That is surely a relatively cheap telephone call at the price.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would have thought that our great cities were receiving less help from the Government. I have with me the figures of the increase they have received. Birmingham's figure went up by £7 million.

Mr. Denis Howell: Proportionately it went down.

Mr. Griffiths: We are talking about whether the cities got any more money, and Birmingham got £7 million more, Liverpool £3 million more, Manchester £3½ million more, Sheffield £6 million more and so on. It is, therefore, an inaccurate picture to suggest that our great cities have been provided with less support by the Government. On the contrary, they have had more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who has spoken frequently in the House and has a great


knowledge of rates, recommended the Government to take more of the burden of education, in particular teacher's salaries, on to the national Exchequer. That is one of the many points to which my right hon. Friend is giving consideration. My hon. Friend's argument was at once countered to some extent by my hon Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) who stressed the need for local government to accept a measure of accountability. If teachers' salaries were to be removed from the local authority to the national authority the local education authority might conclude that it no longer had effective control over one of the most vital services.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) had all our sympathy when he said that he was unable to be here before because his aeroplane was late. He rightly complained that several hon Members who had aspersed him in his absence were not here to listen to what he had to say. While I understand his feelings, I am not sure that they missed a great deal because what he had to tell us comprised only what we have heard, with remarkable consistency, from the Liberal benches for a number of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that he wanted a comprehensive and radical reform of the rating system. I take note of his wish that a White Paper should be published, with the draft Bill appended, so that there would be an opportunity for full discussion within the House before any legislation was brought forward. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted what he said.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) let the cat out of the bag when he said that revaluation was postponed by the Labour Government because they were trying to operate a prices and incomes policy. That is a revealing remark and I am glad to hear it. I was under the impression that the principal reason for the postponement of revaluation was that the then Government were trying to set up the Land Commission and were short of valuation officers at the time.
The debate has revealed a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand there are 

those who say that the best way forward with local government finance is to transfer more local government expenditure to the national Exchequer and, on the other hand, there are those who say that there is a need for more local sources of revenue so that local authorities will feel that more money is available from their own resources. The transfer from local to central funds might involve education, police and other services. We are looking at these, and before the Bill dealing with local government finance is produced we shall give full consideration to all the views that have been expressed. Similarly, we shall give full consideration to looking for other sources of buoyant local revenue.
In taking up a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said about the studies that have been made within my Department of three old towns—Oldham, Sunderland and Rotherham—and three parts of great conurbations—Lambeth in London, a portion of Birmingham and a portion of Liverpool. Each of those studies has been under the general command of a Minister within the Department of the Environment and we have been developing some useful urban guidelines for the future. Arising partly from that and partly from the arguments put forward within the House, my right hon. Friend has said that following discussions with the local authority associations we shall expect to adjust the formula to take account of the special needs of the large cities. He went on to remind the House that there will be, in all likelihood, a rates increase order—subject to the success of the counter-inflation policy—and that next April the rates will be relieved of the local authority services at present costing £350 million relating to personal health and water. This of course would be bound to have a relieving effect on the rates.
My right hon. Friend referred to the rating of empty promises—I am sorry, I should have said premises—[Laughter.] There are many hon. Members who have had a good deal of experience of that. My right hon. Friend referred to the rating of empty premises, and I am advised that in fact more than 100 local authorities are now rating empty premises. As my right hon. Friend said, there


may well be advantage in further developments along that line.
I will briefly summarise some steps we have taken and some of the policies which my right hon. Friend has in mind for the future. We have increased by a record amount the contribution of the central Government to local authority spending. Today, £3 out of every £5 spent by local government is provided by the Exchequer. I beg leave to doubt whether local government—meaning local responsibility in the full sense of the word— could have real meaning if this proportion of national to local government expenditure were to go much higher. It is an old but true maxim that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I doubt whether those who really care—as the hon. Member for Widnes and I both care—for the independence of our locally-elected authorities are doing a real service to them by arguing that the national element should go on increasing and the local element should dwindle further. But be that as it may, the Government have increased the national contribution to the highest figure ever.
We have provided in this year's settlement—and this goes some way to meet the hon. Gentleman's anxieties—for full coverage, within the Government's proportion, of higher costs and wages. Local government services are labour-intensive, but in the negotiations the Government met the full increase in wage costs up to the point of settlement.
We have provided for the extra costs of developing and improving local services, especially in those sectors where the House has urged local authorities to do better. We have allowed for more teachers, for 4,000 more policemen and for an increase in expenditure on social services of 20 per cent, over two years, with special weighting for the handicapped, where the relevant expenditure is to be increased by 50 per cent. We have substantially improved the domestic element for the individual ratepayer. We have done the same with rate rebates, where the income limits have been raised to the highest figure ever, and through the monitoring exercise—in spite of the re-

marks that have been made about it— 125 authorities have so far made a saving of over £8 million.
In fairness, as many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches have seen fit to asperse some of the things that the Government have done, it is reasonable to look at what the Labour Government did when they had the responsibility. They provided, in their very best year, a total of £1,760 million in support for local government. That was in their best year, 1969–70. We have provided £3,130 million, virtually twice as much. And what about the proportion of local spending from the national Exchequer? The best that the Labour Government were ever able to do was some 57 per cent. We are providing 60 per cent, of the total from the national Exchequer. As far as the domestic element is concerned—the rate relief for the individual —the best they were ever able to do was 6p in the pound. We have provided the equivalent of 15p in the pound, which is two and a half times as much.
In their motion the Opposition talk about inflation, but what is their solution to this problem? In office they tried —or at least the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) tried—to operate an incomes policy. But their incomes policy was not £1 plus 4 per cent.; it was a norm of nil for one period and 3 per cent, afterwards. Today many Labour Members have run away from an incomes policy, just as they ran away from revaluation and from industrial relations as well. But while they are running away we find that we have a situation in which, in every local council chamber in the land, it is the Labour Party which is demanding every inflationary increase in expenditure, and then they have the plain nerve to come to this House and suggest that the consequences—higher rates—are somebody else's fault.
It is for that reason that I regard the motion that the Opposition have put on the Order Paper as no more than electioneering humbug, and I recommend the House to reject it and accept our substitute, the very much better amendment of my right hon. Friend.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 288; Noes 266.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Amery, Rt. Hn Julian
Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone) 
McLaren, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Maclean Sir Fitzroy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner Edward
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Batstord, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
Maddan Martin


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhew Victor
Marten, Neil


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John



Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Green Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) 
Miscampbell, Norman


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernie


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Brocklebank-Fowler Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
More Jasper


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Buchanan-Smitn, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M) 
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Sir Michael
Murton Oscar


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Arey


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp; Nairn) 
Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow Cranley


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)
Osborn, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson Cecil.


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norlolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James




Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Warren, Kenneth


Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple, John M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sproat, lain
Trew, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodnutt, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Worsley, Marcus


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Waddington, David



Stokes, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Sutcliffe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Tapsell, Peter






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred
Lambie, David


Barnes, Michael
Ewing, Harry
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Latham, Arthur


Baxter, William
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee,Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lomas Kenneth


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin Charles


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lyons Edward (Bradford. E.)




Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Golding, John
McBride Neil


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney Hugh


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuire, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Machin, George


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, Josh P.


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter



Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Simon Bootle)


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marks, Kenneth


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsden, F.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall Dr. Edmund


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roben (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Janner, Greville
Molloy, William


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Doig, Peter
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moyle, Roland


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Murray, Ronald King


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oakes, Gordon


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)
O'Malley, Brian







Oram, Bert
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinn, James


Orbach, Maurice
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Orme, Stanley
Rose, Paul B.
Tope, Graham


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphae


Padley, Walter
Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, T. W.


Paget, R. T.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pardoe John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George


Peart Rt Hn Fred
Sillars, James
Watkins, David


Pendry Tom
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David



Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, Ernest G.
Small, William
Wells william (walsell, N.)


Prentice, Rt.Hn. Reg.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
while, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Prescott, John
Smith John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rankin, John
Steel, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Mr. Michael Cocks


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290; Noes 266.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhew, Victor


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Gorst, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coombs, Derek
Gower, Raymond


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooper, A. E.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordle, John
Gray, Hamish


Astor, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patrick
Grieve, Percy


Awdry, Daniel
Costain, A. P
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Critchley, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crouch, David
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goidsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Benyon, W.
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Biffen, John
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Body, Richard
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hicks, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Bray, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Hiley, Joseph


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fell, Anthony
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Holland, Philip


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fidler, Michael
Holt, Miss Mary


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fox, Marcus
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fry, Peter
James, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Galfaraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Channon, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Jessel, Toby


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jopling, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Philip
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith




Kaberry, Sir Donald
Murton, Oscar
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sproat, lain


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kirk, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stokes, John


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sutcliffe, John


Knox, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lane, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Calhcart)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Powell Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Price David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Luce, R. N.
Proudfoot Wilfred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt Hn Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McCrindle, R. A.
Raison Timothy
Trew, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McMaster, Stanley
Redmond, Robert
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Redd, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walder David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt.Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maddan, Martin
Rendon, rt. hn. Sir David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Madel, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wall, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walters Dennis


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren Kenneth


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mawby Ray
Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rost, Peter
Wiggin Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winterton Nicholas


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Wood Rt. Hn. Richard


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Money, Ernie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt Mark


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Worsley Marcus


Monro, Hector
Shersby, Michael
Wylie Rt. Hn. N. R.


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles
Younger, Hn. George


More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George



Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Morrison, Charles
Soref, Harold
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Mudd, David
Speed, Keith





NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack


Ashley, Jack
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Barnes, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C,)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Baxter, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Fred


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bottomly, Rt. Hn. Arthur




Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Ford, Ben


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Deakins, Eric
Forrester, John


Brown Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne.W.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Delargy, Hugh
Freeson, Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Galpern, Sir Myer


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Garret, W. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dormand, J. D.
Golding, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Gourlay, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, George (Morpeth)







Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Machin, George
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
Mackie, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rowlands, Ted


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E.)
Sandelson, Neville


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marsden, F.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo Ian
Small, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr.M. S.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)




Janner, Greviffe
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, R . Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Stallard, A. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Steel, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stoddard, David (Swindon)


Jenkins Rt Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn John




Strang, Gavin


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnston, Walter (derby, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Johnston, Russell)Inverness
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Erie
Tomney, Frank


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tope Graham


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney Tom


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Tuck Raphael


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Varley Eric G


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Kinnock, Neil
Padley, Walter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Paget, R. T.
Wallace George


Lamborn, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Weitzman, David


Latham, Arthur
Pardoe, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
 white, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Leonard, Dick
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Prescott, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rankin, John



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McBride, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds. S.)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


McCartney, Hugh
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Michael Cocks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the essential services provided by local government, endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to make a substantial increase in the rate support grant to local authorities to enable their essen-

tial services to develop at a reasonable rate; welcomes the help to be given to domestic ratepayers both by the biggest ever increase in the domestic element of rate support grant, and by the special relief for those worst hit by revaluation; and calls upon local authorities to support Her Majesty's Government's measures to counter inflation by avoiding unnecessarily high rate levies.

Orders of the Day — LONDON MOTORWAY BOX

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move,
That this House urges the Government to take full account of the Report of the Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport Planning in framing its future transport policies, and in particular to reject any Greater London Council motorway proposals which are in conflict with that Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from ' and' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's endorsement of the view of the Panel of Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan that there should be comprehensive and co-ordinated transport policies for London in the fields of public transport, traffic management and restraint and an improvement of the environment.

Mr. Jay: I believe that once again the House owes a great debt to the Expenditure Committee, in particular to its Environment Sub-Committee, for its report on urban transport planning. It is a striking report which clearly calls for some radical new thinking about urban road building policy.
Road policy has suffered increasingly in recent years from two fallacies inherited from the past. First, it has been tacitly assumed that the building of major new roads takes traffic off existing roads without increasing the total. It is now widely realised that the building of new roads increases the traffic, leads more people to buy and use cars, thereby damaging public transport, and leads to even more car traffic in the next phase.
Secondly, the often perfectly valid argument for building motorways between and round cities has been mistakenly applied to motorways within cities—for instance, Westway—which literally bring traffic right up against people's homes.
These two basic truths are emphatically endorsed as guides to policy in the Expenditure Committee's report. I point to two key sentences in paragraph 27:
We do not believe that in the short term an extension of urban road building of itself

represents a solution to any of the problems we have discussed in Chapter II.
That is the chapter on the main problems of city transport.
The arguments used in favour of road building seem to us to be in error by presuming that the roads which we already have are being used in the most efficient manner in the context of the total transport situation.
The Committee therefore strikingly concludes in its "Summary of Recommendations":
As an urgent priority, all trunk and principal schemes of urban road building which have not reached the exchange of contract stage should be re-examined ab initio."
That is a striking recommendation.
Though conditions vary from one city to another as we all know, there have been far too many cases recently, from Portsmouth to Gateshead and from Cardiff to Edinburgh, where attempts have been made by the road interests to force unwanted and extravagant inner motorways, by the lavish offer of a 75 per cent, grant of public money, on cities in defiance of the wishes of the population.
I believe that the Expenditure Committee's recommendations apply most forcibly to London. I trust and, indeed, assume that the Secretary of State for the Environment will study their implications for London very seriously. The Greater London Development Plan, largely derived in its transport sections from days of out-of-date thinking on all this, originally proposed four major ring-ways and a number of radials at a total cost which is now admitted to be more than £2,000 million.
As against this, the principal objectors to the motorway proposals, including a number of London borough councils, have argued throughout for a constructive and, I think, moderate and far less extravagant policy substantially on the following lines. The first argument is to build one or both of the outer two ring-ways, which are far less destructive, less expensive, and tend, so far as possible, to keep traffic out of London rather than to bring it in. The second is to intensify throughout the inner area the already partially effective measures of traffic restraint and traffic management by more stringent parking controls and other measures. The third is to invest much more heavily in public transport. I believe that public opinion in London,


which should account for something in this argument, overwhelmingly endorses that alternative strategy. As against that, I understand that the Secretary of State has provisionally accepted, subject to public opinion—I welcome that qualification—the exceedingly costly and grandiose project of building Ringway 1 in densely residential London and to omit Ringway 3. I urge him most strongly to think again hard and long before he irrevocably ties himself to that curious plan.
The Council on Tribunals in February 1968 ruled that because the then London Airport plan was a revised plan a further inquiry was required. The council said that it was required
 as a matter of justice".
The proposals now put forward—both those of the GLC and those of the Lay-field Report—are revised compared with the GLDP. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider, quite apart from the rest of the argument, that a further public inquiry is required if the revised plans are to be adopted? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now publish the report of the inspector on the West Cross Route inquiry which was held last spring and which is said to have reported against this section of Ringway 1. At any rate, we should know whether that is true.
On the merits of the case, to build Ringway 1 without Ringway 3 would be, of all the possible alternatives, the most damaging to inner London. It was advocated by virtually nobody before the Lay-field Report. There are three crucial objections. First, it would be enormously expensive in terms of resources and public money. Secondly, it would involve a huge housing loss. Thirdly, in the opinion of most impartial transport experts it would be likely to maintain traffic congestion rather than improve it. To build Ringway 1 without Ringways 2 and 3 would force the maximum of traffic on to Ringway 1 and so into residential London. In the form contemplated by this section of the Layfield Report, the project would involve not only Ringway 1 cutting through residential areas from Islington to Brixton and from Deptford to Hamp-stead, but radial motorways which have not been contemplated—I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentle-

man will deny this—namely, the M.I, M.3, M.23, M.ll, M.12 and others which will plough through Putney, Barnes, Wandsworth, Streatham, Norbury, Kil-bura, Cricklewood and a string of other areas.
The cost of Ringway I has been put officially at £600 million. At the public inquiry last spring into the West Cross Route, which is part of Ringway 1 it was admitted that the 2¾ miles would cost £64 million. That is £27 million a mile. At that rate the total cost of Ringway 1, which is about 30 miles, would be nearly £900 million. I believe that £800 million is a conservative estimate, because we are now told that wide swathes of land are to be taken on either side, which must increase the cost and housing loss still further.
It seems that the radial now proposed to go right into Ringway 1 will cost almost as much again—namely, another £700 million or £800 million. This House should not blithely and almost every month approve grandiose £800 million schemes unless convincing economic or other cases are made out.
On a matter of priorities, hon. Members may be interested in a few illuminating comparisons. The present Government's family income supplement, which is supposed to cure poverty throughout the country, is to cost a maximum of £11 million. That is the cost of about 700 yards of Ringway 1. The Government's national rebate to furnished tenants will cost £8 million. That would pay for about 500 yards of Ringway 1. The EEC's annual regional aid budget for nine countries of £20 million would pay for 1,100 yards of Ringway 1. I do not believe that it can be the right priority.
No serious attempt has been made to show that the economic return on Ring-way 1 will be large enough to pass the test which is usually applied to motorways by the Treasury before they qualify for grant. The evidence before the Layfield inquiry suggested that the return would be barely 5 per cent., or even a negative return. The Layfield Report speaks of a maximum return of 55 per cent. That does not allow for costs like damage to public transport, which I understand the Department now accepts as a legitimate cost. In this part of the argument, Layfield virtually gave up the


attempt to make an economic case. The report says:
We have not the resources with which to attempt to quantify all the effects.
Before the West Cross Route inquiry last spring the GLC did not attempt to establish any rate of economic return. Even more serious from the point of view of costing resources is the housing loss. I find it a little odd, although I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather new to this subject, that he should have taken refuge in saying that the housing loss cannot be estimated and that it is in any case very small. Careful, although not exact, figures were given by the GLC before the inquiry, as they are also given in the Layfield Report. According to the GLC's estimate, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find in a notorious document known as Background Paper 158, Ringway 1 alone will swallow up rather more than 1,000 acres of land and about 7,500 homes for about 23,000 people. According to the Layfield estimate, the loss of homes from its proposals would be smaller. The losses, the report says, would be somewhat smaller than the 16,600 given by the GLC. Let us say 15,000 homes or homes for over 40,000 people. On the official estimates we would be faced with a loss of homes for 20,000 to 25,000 people on account of Ringway 1 alone, and about 45,000 if we include the radials which Ringway 1, on this plan, would make inevitable. I believe that these are under-estimates. They apply up to 1991 only and not for the whole course of these operations. However, even taking them as minimum figures, deliberately to take away homes and housing land capable of housing over 40,000 people when the GLC expects a shortage affecting 300,000 people in 1980 cannot be justified. It would make the London housing shortage insoluble for the rest of the century. That is what is at stake, as land is by common consent the limiting factor on housing in Greater London. The loss of this land is just as real and the housing loss is just as great whether the houses destroyed are old or new.
If a really convincing argument could be advanced to show that some crucial transport gain could be achieved by Ringway 1, some might think that the housing disaster was worth it, but the

traffic argument has been shown by several years of debate to be completely unproved and inconclusive. Certainly— this is about the only thing that is certain—Ringway 1 would contribute virtually nothing to London's real traffic problem, the morning and evening rush hours.
Apart from that, some traditional road enthusiasts would still contend that urban motorways would relieve the existing roads, but most transport experts would now argue, with a good deal of evidence and experience on their side, that the increase in total road traffic generated would leave congestion as bad as it is and damage public transport in the process.
The truth of this issue, I believe, is that we do not know for certain what the traffic effects would be. But to spend £1,500 million or even £800 million and sacrifice homes for 40,000 people or more for the sake of an unproved hypothesis seems to most of us blatantly indefensible. One of the most striking aspects of the Layfield Report is that it plainly admits that even if these ringways were built traffic restraint and traffic management would be needed almost as stringently as if they were not.
What specific reasons does the report give for advocating Ringway 1 and its radials? One odd thing about the Layfield Report, much of whose general argument is excellent, is that, like the GLC itself, having urged the highest priorities for housing as a general proposition, when it comes to the transport section, it suddenly reaches conclusions which do not flow from the arguments and which would make such a priority impossible.
We are told in the report that Ringway 1 is desirable because
commercial vehicles would be attracted by a route close to the centre.
That means, in plain English, that the lorries would be drawn right down the radials into the inner ring. When it comes to the unavoidable housing loss, the author of this section of the report takes refuge in what seems to me to be plain nonsense:
The Ringway 1 corridor will be more likely to assist in the re-development of housing problem areas.
That is the jargon—with some hint that if the road goes through poorer areas it does not matter so much.
The reality is what any hon. Member can see for himself simply by looking at the overhead sections of Westway. an overhead monstrosity which has made whole rows of existing houses uninhabitable and living conditions a good deal worse in others not far away. In Batter-sea alone, if I may quote that just once, it would mean destroying or rendering virtually uninhabitable a number of excellent housing estates, both council and private, most of them built since the war, with a total permanent loss of 1,500 homes, or homes for more than 4,000 people. Those figures were agreed by the GLC before the inquiry.
Here, the Expenditure Committee's Report, in glaring contrast to the authors of this section of Layfield, sets out the simple truth when it says:
Paradoxically, an increase in road expenditure, causing more urban building, tends to exacerbate the other urban problems of housing, health, education, etc.
In London, because of land shortage, it does so, of course, worse than anywhere else, and the damage to living conditions of those living near the motorway, whose homes are not actually destroyed, would, I suspect, be as serious as the loss of homes itself.
For all these reasons, notably because of the huge cost, the housing loss and the fact that public opinion in London is, on all the evidence, overwhelmingly against this project, I believe that the building of the inner ringway and radials would be a gigantic error. I urge the Minister—who is not, I believe, committed—as strongly as I can to heed public opinion, to respect the report of the all-party Expenditure Committee and not to commit himself to another grandiose gamble of this kind.
Let us, in fact and not just in words, give the highest priority to what is, by common consent, by far the most acute problem—housing. Let us build the outer ringways, which do little damage, and tackle the inner problem by effective traffic restraint and steadily improving public transport. London, I believe, has precious and unique assets still at this day, and it now has a precious opportunity to avoid the mistakes which have mutilated other cities.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The constituency of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) faces mine across the river. On other occasions we have faced each other across microphones and other pieces of equipment, disagreeing on the issue of motorways, and we shall do so again tonight.
There was a marked contrast between the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the wording of the motion that he was supposed to be moving. The views that he exposed are well known—he is against any form of central ringway—but that is not what the motion says nor what the Select Committee said. The Select Committee said that there were many issues, like traffic restraint and public transport, which should be taken into account before urban ringways were built. It did not say that they should not be built—[Interruption.] It did not say that they must not be built. Very well, the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend that it did. What it said was that there were other considerations which should be taken into account.
My point is that these other issues have been taken into account. When one takes them into account one sees that, in order to have a complete policy on traffic in London, one needs not only public transport and traffic restraint but a ringway as well. This is what I shall attempt to show the House.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that housing was London's greatest problem. Every London Member would agree with that. But he and I have in our constituencies—I suspect that the same is true of every other London Member— streets of houses which are made intolerable to live in by traffic. So it is no good simply talking about the houses which would be removed if there were to be a ringway. One must also discuss the improvement of other houses which could be effected.
In my constituency there are large areas where through traffic comes thundering along pleasant streets. This is true of the Embankment and of Cheyne Walk, opposite the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it is also true of that large system of one-way streets that goes from Edith Grove to Earls Court Road, on to the Cromwell Road and its


extension. All those are pleasant streets and all are made frightful by the traffic. If the House and the right hon. Gentleman are really interested in London's housing, they must consider not only the destruction of some houses if a ringway is built but also the improvement of other houses. A ringway is needed if we are to have the sort of improvement in traffic conditions and the environment which will make those existing houses decent to live in.
When the Labour Party held power at County Hall it saw the necessity of a road. I make that point only briefly, because I suggest that much of the change of view is not really the sort of thinking with which we are presented by the Expenditure Committee's report and the GLC's recent discussion papers. It is really the very simple piece of voting logistics that everyone hates having a motorway near his home—of course— whereas few people understand and have thought hard about the benefits to the whole of the city which a ringway would bring.
Therefore, the conversion of the Labour Party is not so much a matter of long-thought-out conversion of ideas as a sort of feeling that there are constituencies which it may win by this change of policy. I say no more about that except that the Government have made a massive move to help those who are affected by a new motorway development. The Land Compensation Bill is evidence of a very constructive attitude in that direction. But I fully accept that no one wants a motorway near his home.
The question which the House has to settle today is whether we need one ring-way. We can talk about one ringway because the grandiose plans of the Labour GLC for two central ringways and ring-ways throughout have disappeared for ever. We are talking about whether there should be a single central ringway in London.
I can underline this from my own point of view, which I am sure is a point of view held by the GLC. No one is suggesting that a ringway alone will give the needed relief. When the right hon. Member for Battersea, North says that other things are needed, he is preaching to the converted. As he is a very assiduous constituency Member, he will have read the recent publications of the GLC

"Traffic and the Environment" and " Living with Traffic ". He will know that in the GLC there has been a great deal of new thinking on this whole problem. We would all agree that the first essential is better public transport. The G.L.C. has been putting a great deal more money into public transport. I am glad to say that it has been supported in that by the Government. We are beginning to see real improvements in the rolling stock on our Underground railway and improvements in our buses.
The new paper contains many constructive ideas about traffic restraint. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that were we simply to build the motorway and do nothing about traffic restraint, the traffic would increase to fill the gap. There are plenty of examples of that in London. I have not been around Shepherds Bush recently but I have been told that it is as crowded as it used to be. I can well believe that. The point is that if we have both a ringway and traffic restraint, we can get the sort of environmental improvements we all want.
I mentioned earlier the Earls Court Road. One of the propositions made in one of the papers is the pedestrianisation of the Earls Court Road, that it would be possible—if we have a ringway but not otherwise—to turn that road into a pedestrian precinct. I am sure that all hon. Members know the Earls Court Road and that at present it is an unpaid acting motorway. If we are able to have a purpose-built road, we can have better, more effective and tougher systems of traffic restraint on the existing roads.

Mr. Jay: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that in the proceedings at the West Cross route inquiry the GLC was asked whether it could give an assurance that if the West Cross route was built, the Earls Court Road would be pedestrianised or would even revert to two-way traffic. The GLC was quite unable to give such an assurance.

Mr. Worsley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read the paper to which I was referring. The rest of us— perhaps not the right hon. Gentleman— are moving with the times in these matters. We are moving to a situation where all sorts of new thinking is taking place. Indeed, a conference was recently organised by the GLC about the pedestrianisation of streets.
Surely it is not a difficult concept that if we have a purpose-built road, that will take traffic off the residential streets. We shall then be able to control the traffic in those streets more vigorously and to have tougher restrictions. We shall, therefore, be able to control traffic better.
The GLC is currently banning big lorries from going through central London. That illustrates my point simply and well. My borough council naturally squealed, because obviously, if heavy lorries do not travel through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), they tend to come into my constituency. If they do not come through my constituency they will go through that of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). But if there were a purpose-built motorway on to which that traffic could be guided —a ringway—we could ban some through traffic in central London, especially the big lorries, and perhaps even more than that.
There are examples of this in other cities. I am told that in Paris, where they have built—and completed, I think —the Boulevard Peripherique, one-third of the traffic in central Paris travels around that ring road. If one adds that to the statistics that one-quarter of the traffic in central London is through traffic, one can see the degree of improvement that can be obtained.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I take the point about the Boulevard Peripherique, but does not the hon. Member take the point that as one-third of the traffic uses that boulevard, the traffic congestion within that ring has got even worse? It has not decreased the congestion but has increased it.

Mr. Worsley: That is the very point which I am trying to make. If one has that type of ring road, one can have the kind of traffic restraint about which we are now talking, which is mentioned in the new paper on this matter, which is not, unless Paris has changed very much since I last visited it, applied in the centre of Paris. It is not just a matter of having a ringway; it is also a matter of applying techniques of traffic restraint and using all the methods which can be applied to control traffic.
I want to make one or two comments about the cost. It is very easy to make the sort of remark which the right hon. Gentleman made when one is putting annual expenditure against capital expenditure. Every comparison that the right hon. Gentleman made was not with an equivalent capital project but with annual expenditure. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman said so but nevertheless his comparisons, because they were annual against capital, were not fair. The true comparisons are with money being spent on other projects. The best comparison that I can give the right hon. Gentleman is the capital proposed to be spent on public transport in London over the next 10 years. I am not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman's figures on either housing or capital cost. I accept that they are enormous. But the £1,000 million cost is over 15 years and, therefore, it must be compared with other capital projects and not with annual expenditures. I suggest that we compare it, perhaps, to the £500 million —a very comparable figure—over 10 years proposed for public transport.
The right hon. Gentleman is on very weak ground as regards housing. He talks about 7,000 houses. Again I am not quarrelling with his figures. When compared, however, with the total housing stock of London, this is one-third of 1 per cent. The point is that if the improvement throughout the rest of the area is such—as I believe it would be with a single inner ringway—one can look at this sort of housing cost without the rather exaggerated language that the right hon. Gentleman used. He spoke as if it would prevent any solution of the problem of housing in London but the loss of one-third of 1 per cent. could not do that. Half of this housing has a life expectancy of less than 20 years.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Member advocating as a corollary to that that the outer London boroughs should make substantial increases in the proportion of land and housing available to the inner London boroughs?

Mr. Worsley: The hon. Member is introducing a quite different subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is true, and if we can get the sort of environmental gain which is claimed for the ringway, that


sort of housing loss can be accepted. If it is not possible, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is right. I do not think that the figures for housing loss when set in the whole context of London alter the argument one way or the other. I believe that to base a London traffic policy on public transport and traffic restraint only is a two-legged policy when we need a three-legged policy. We need the ringway as well. It is only if we have it that we can introduce effective traffic restraint.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I have followed the hon. Member's remarks with great care. It seems that if we are to get down to discussing the effect of the ringways on the urban environment, one must get down to details and show just what the plans propounded from time to time by the GLC mean for specific areas. That is what I propose to do for my own area.
Not only will I speak for my constituency but, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) has other responsibilities in connection with his role as social services spokesman for the Labour Party, he has authorised me to speak for him as well. This is not a difficult task for me to perform because our ideas on the subject of motorways are pretty well identical, although our consituencies are affected by different schemes concerning Ring-way 1. Although they arc affected by these differing schemes we can talk with one voice.
The background is that 11 years ago— and anybody who wants to fight the ringway scheme has to have considerable reserves of stamina and energy—it was announced that Ringway 1 was to go through Blackheath. The people there decided that they would unite to defend their attractive urban area—one of the areas that lends distinction to South-East London—and they have fought the scheme ever since. I recall the first protest meeting we had when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who lived in the area, took the chair. The right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was kind enough to appear on our platform to give his wholehearted support.

I became chairman of the Blackheath Motorway Action Group in 1962, some four years before I entered the House.
I am prepared to accept that there was at that stage a misguided Labour-controlled London County Council in charge of the operation. That did not deter us. We have been fighting for 11 years and the crucial result of the battle is that at the moment the Greater London Development Plan inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Layfield, QC, has recommended that the motorway should no longer go through Blackheath but that the bottom right-hand corner of Ringway 1 be cut off by a road which would go from the East End of London through the Isle of Dogs and through my right hon. Friend's constituency of Deptford. It would miss Blackheath altogether.
In the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Deptford was indeed a name to conjure with. Marlowe was associated with it. Practically every schoolboy knows that Peter the Great learnt his shipbuilding in Deptford. Pepys was closely associated with Deptford. During the nineteenth century, however, represented I am sure by a number of members of the Conservative Party, the long, slow, dreary decline started and the area ended up as an architectural and environmental jewel separated by vast oceans of slumdom where large Victorian crumbling houses are in multi-occupation and, worse, there are rows and rows of Victorian working-class terraced houses also in multi-occupation. A substantial decline in the total environment took place. In 1963 the borough of Deptford amalgamated with that of Lewisham. It has always been the intention of the London borough of Lewisham to rebuild Deptford. It has started upon it and in this respect my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford was instrumental in getting large sums of money for the purpose.
Those local community leaders, who had hoped for many years to see the resuscitation of a Deptford that would play its part in London and be a source of pride to all Londoners, at last began to think that there was a hope and a chance to fight a battle for an improved environment and to make a decent town out of what had become a bad area of London. That development roughly


coincided with the election to this House of my right hon. Friend. The scheme for rebuilding Deptford began to be initiated around the middle 1960s, shortly after my right hon. Friend appeared in this House. If the Layfield proposal to put an eight-lane motorway through the area, just as it is beginning to lift its eyes from the ground to the skies again, is adopted the rebuilding will be crushed under foot by the Government's friends who preside at County Hall.
What is the solution to the problem if the inhabitants of both Blackheath and Deptford fight their considerable battles against various aspects of the motorway? It is the policy of the GLC Labour group to fight the elections on 12th April on a policy that Ringway 1 shall not be built. That is obviously the best solution, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has put forward. But my right hon. Friend for Deptford and myself, in undertaking our responsibilities and looking after our constituents, must also consider the "worst case" solution. In particular, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) once said he thought there was virtue in an element of uncertainty attending the democratic process. He was talking at that time about Rhodesia, but it applies equally to the Greater London area.
It is conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman's friends might win on 12th April. What then is the solution that we shall have to adopt in South-East London?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: UDI.

Mr. Moyle: Let us take a look at the Blackheath situation. In my constituency the residents are opposed to an eight-lane motorway on the basis of the scheme that has always been argued by the GLC until very recently. The Greenwich borough Council believes that the ringway should not be built but believes that if it is to be built it would be best for it to go through the Blackheath conservation area in a deep-bore tunnel. Blackheath was the first conservation area to be declared in London and it is one of the best. Lewisham Borough Council takes a similar view, that the ringway should not be built. If it is to be built it believes that it should go through the Blackheath

conservation area in an eight-lane deep-bore tunnel.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) when Secretary of State for the Environment prevailed on the GLC to put this problem to Professor Colin Buchanan. Professor Buchanan recommended that the eight-lane motorway should go through the Blackheath conservation area in a deep-bore tunnel, not a cut-and-cover tunnel. This is a crucial matter. It must go through the substrata without disturbing anything on the surface. Methods of tunnelling have substantially improved in terms of both mechanical efficiency and cost. I am happy to say that at the Layfield inquiry the GLC began to climb down and said that the best environmental solution was that the motorway should go through Blackheath conservation area in a deep-bore tunnel.
The Layfield Report said on this topic:
… the route proposed in the Greater London Development Plan runs southward into Blackheath, into what is one of the most difficult areas into which to secure the satisfactory integration of an urban motorway into its surroundings. To avoid this potential environmental effect would be a substantial bonus.
It came up with the idea of the Isle of Dogs and Deptford scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and I are united in telling the Secretary of State that the people of Blackheath have never sought to push their problem on to the shoulders of the people of Deptford or of anywhere else. If this motorway ever has to be built, the obvious and correct solution is to put it through the Blackheath conservation area in a deep-bore tunnel using the improved techniques which are now available.

Mr. John Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the splendid way in which he has defended the interests of my constituency as well as his own. He painted a correct picture of an area in which new housing and new hope is coming to an area of South London which had been in decline. Does he also agree that one of the most monumental crimes that could be committed in this area is the destruction of one of the oldest, closest and best communities in London?

Mr. Moyle: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I have always been impressed by the close community spirit


which exists all along the riverside boroughs, particularly in Deptford. It would be a tragedy if London were made more anonymous by the decanting of this closely-knit population into the suburbs where those inhabitants would no longer have any great knowledge of the people among whom they live.
The argument against the tunnel in Blackheath is that it would mean extra expenditure. If the money were available to me personally, it would keep me in the style and manner of life to which I would hope to become accustomed until I departed from this world, but in terms of the enormous sums of money expended on motorways the extra expenditure on a tunnel would be infinitesimal. My calculation is that a deep-bore tunnel through the Blackheath conservation area would add only about 1 per cent. to the cost of the inner London motorway box. It would be such a relatively insignificant figure as not to prevent the GLC, and if necessary the Secretary of State, coming to a sensible solution.
There is one technical consideration which I should like to mention. Where the eastern end of the tunnel is supposed to appear there happens to be a substantial sewer. If a tunnel goes over the top of the sewer, 20 houses, some of great attraction and architectural elegance, are likely to be destroyed. Those houses can be saved at a small extra cost if the tunnel is taken underneath the sewer.
There are two other problems to be considered. At one stage Ringway 2 was to come through my constituency, but that is no longer a threat. When the proposals for Ringway 2 were announced, I called the residents together and advised them to join the London Motorway Action Group, which has been headed with such great distinction for a number of years by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. They were sufficiently wise to take my advice and their chairman became the treasurer of the London Motorway Action Group. They have won their battle and I hope that they will long live to enjoy their freedom from the motorway.
The corridor of opportunity, as it is so grotesquely called, stretching across the south of the borough of Lewisham, still remains. Since Ringway 2 has now been declared a non-starter by the Layfield

Committee, I hope that the Secretary of State will see that the GLC remove this corridor of opportunity so that this blight will no longer cast itself over that part of Lewisham and so that the people there can live in freedom.
The Layfield Report, having done some excellent work, unfortunately went out of its way to commit a gross error. It suggested that the M20 should be brought into the centre of London via an area in my constituency known as Hither Green. Hither Green in many ways is similar to Deptford in that studies have shown that it is a stable community. It consists of a number of houses built at the turn of the century, and probably on the whole the housing conditions in Hither Green are rather better than the conditions in old Deptford. It is an area which, if properly handled, could provide a cosy environment for the next 50 years. If it is not properly handled, it could rapidly decline into slumdom.
The proposal that an eight-lane motorway should be brought into the centre of this area has thrown the entire borough of Lewisham into a state of alarm and despondency. The area is already threatened by a Government proposal which envisages the erection of a resettlement-reception centre for single homeless males. If that happens it will not help the environment—but it is quite certain if an eight-lane motorway is built in the area it will mean the destruction of 1,500 houses in a borough which has a waiting list of 10,000 families, 2,000 of which are fairly urgent cases. We in Lewisham have a serious housing problem and are fighting desperately to take care of it but, because of the effects of the London Government Act, for every house which we build in Lewisham we have to knock another down. This means, in terms of solving the housing problems in the area, a considerably slower movement than would be the case in a fringe area such as Bromley.
I hope that this appalling proposal for a motorway through the Hither Green area will be dropped. I have tendered to the Secretary of State all the advice I have at my command and I hope that he will take notice of it.

8.18 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North


(Mr. Moyle) talked a great deal about a deep-bore tunnel through Blackheath and I believe that this is the only sensible way to solve the problem, if it has to be solved in that way. I am in favour of solving the traffic problem by deep-bore tunnels, all under London, not merely under Blackheath. If we cannot have that system, I am in favour of some sort of ringway system. However, this can be done on an entirely different basis, not by having a ringway system partly on the surface and partly underground but by the construction of underways at tube depth, one running north to south and one east to west. One starts with an underway north to south and one east to west and eventually ends up with three underways in each direction.
I have put forward this suggestion twice in the House in the last year and I raised this matter in the previous Parliament. As yet I have not yet received an answer from the Department. I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State because he has not been in the chair for very long, but I hope that I shall soon be given an answer on whether such a scheme is feasible for London and also other large cities on a smaller scale.
It is a scheme produced by a London architect named A. E. T. Matthews and some other experts as partners. He put this scheme before the Layfield inquiry. I went along with him. The Layfield Report makes no reference to this scheme at all except to mention that this "objection", as it was described, was heard. It gives no opinion on it. Here we are considering a ringway plan for inner London yet this revolutionary scheme has not been considered by the Layfield inquiry. Perhaps it did not have time. I do not know.
It is time that the Department of the Environment looked at this matter from a national as well as from a London point of view. The solution which I have mentioned would solve the housing problem caused by the ringway. We would not lose anything like as many houses as with the ringway scheme. It would only be necessary to pull down houses at the entrances and exits to the tunnels. I understand further that the cost of Ringway 1 is estimated to be about £2,000 million at the date of completion in about

1981. The latest estimate I have for the underway scheme is £1,500 million to £2,000 million and it is estimated that it could be completed in about 10 years. That is one tunnel going north-south and another going east-west.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Following that line of thought, would it not be even cheaper if we made the cars run over the surface and force the people to live in deep-bore tunnels?

Sir R. Russell: I do not take that as a serious interruption.
It is a serious solution to our problems to take the traffic underground. Not only would it be less damaging to our housing but the effect on the environment would be considerably mitigated. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at this suggestion seriously. It has been put forward in detail by Mr. Matthews in two separate booklets, one in 1966 and one last year. In the latter the plan has been brought up to date from a technical and cost point of view. It is meant to solve our traffic problems in a sensitive and less damaging way than building roads on the surface. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it seriously and give an opinion on it before too long.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Graham Tope: I do not want to follow the arguments of previous speakers too closely except to say how delighted I am to agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) in welcoming the somewhat belated conversion of the Labour Party at County Hall to Liberal policy in opposing these ringways, which they first conceived.
In the past London has suffered many disasters—the Great Fire, plague, the blitz, the depression. We are now facing another potential disaster—a great paralysis. The growth of London has been dependent on public transport, on the growth of the railways, trams, the Underground, the buses. Just 20 years ago our public transport system had a strong foundation. That has now been seriously undermined. The railways are being allowed to become increasingly dilapidated, the quality of service, sadly, is declining, and fares are being allowed


to rocket. Bus services have been practically halved in number compared with 10 years ago. Fares are rising, and services are being cut as they become more uneconomic.
More people are being forced to use cars. Further, there is a suppressed demand for private car use. The increased building of roads will release this suppressed demand. It has already been said that the more roads that are built the greater is the traffic congestion. This is a generally accepted fact, and I am surprised to hear that hon. Members opposite have apparently not yet realised that the easier it is made for cars to travel on motorways the more congestion there will be on and off those motorways. It has been calculated, to take an extreme example, that if a city were to become entirely reliant on private transport, five-ninths of its surface area would be necessary for major road use.
That is an extreme example but nevertheless a logical conclusion to the sort of policy which has been adopted by the GLC recently. Our aim must be to discourage traffic in central London and in urban areas. The effect of these motorway proposals will be to do just the opposite. We have heard of the enormous financial and social costs in terms of people being thrown out of their homes. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has quoted the figures, which have not been challenged. Thousands of people will be thrown out of their homes to make way for these motorways which will sever communities.
The Layfield Report recognises that it is unlikely that these families can be rehoused in suitable accommodation at a price or rent which they can afford. This is a major problem facing Londoners. We have spoken many times in this House of London's housing crisis. Why should we add to that crisis and at the same time increase traffic congestion? Dealing with the motorway proposals alone is bad enough, but we are not dealing only with those. We are also dealing with proposals for radial routes, primary and secondary roads. Many of these developments are already taking place.
More often than not they take place under the guise of feeder routes,

secondary roads for proposed motorways; nevertheless they are major road improvements and no one is in any doubt that they are preparatory to becoming feeder routes for the motorways should they ever be built. If they are not built we shall be left with extremely costly white elephants. It is no exaggeration to say that in view of these road developments one day Londoners will wake up to find their horizons blotted out by these major motorways swathing through their communities. This technological hooliganism must be stopped before it is too late.
There can be no justification for building more urban motorways in London, particularly Ringway 1. I and my Liberal colleagues will oppose this most strenuously and will support all other attempts to oppose it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When you are here.

Mr. Tope: This can probably be more effectively opposed elsewhere.
I, too, welcome the recommendation in the Layfield Report that the southern and north-western sections of Ringway 3 should not be built. I can see no justification for building two major motorways within six or seven miles of each other. Already the South Orbital Route is being built to the south of my constituency. There can be no justification either in traffic or in cost terms for building yet another major motorway within about five miles of it. I hope that the Minister will soon announce his decision on this and accept the recommendations of the Layfield Report that Ringway 3, in the south at least, should not be built.
It has been said many times in this place and other places that our future must lie with an improved public transport system, yet the Layfield Report says:
The general intent of the council
that is the Greater London Council—
is said to be to improve public transport in all possible ways, but we heard little evidence to indicate in concrete terms how this unexceptional but extraordinarily vague aim was to be achieved.
This aim should not be vague and it must be achieved.
I have to be brief this evening because there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate and, unfortunately, the time is very limited. There are many measures which can be taken to improve public transport in London, and most of them are already well known to hon. Members. First and foremost, I believe we should support the recommendation in the Layfield Report for one single public transport authority in London. That is essential to co-ordinate the bus, rail and Underground services. I hope that the Government will support that recommendation.
Secondly, we must try again, as the Layfield Report says, to make public transport far more attractive, to make it cheap, convenient, frequent and, above all, a public service, not a profit-making enterprise. The sooner a fare-free system can be introduced in London the better. I appreciate that that is not immediately realisable; nevertheless it is an aim towards which we should be working. A step towards that aim which I would very much welcome would be the introduction of a low flat-fare system in London.
We should have better interchange facilities between bus and rail services and co-ordination of timetables and coordination of bus lanes properly separated so that buses can move quickly about London and not be held up by traffic congestion—congestion which will be worsened if these motorway proposals go ahead. We need a reappraisal of many miles of unused or little-used railway lines throughout the London area. Perhaps the better known is the North London line. This could be used much more extensively. Every effort should be made to put as much freight as possible back on to the railways and off the roads, particularly in urban areas.
In this connection I should like to see a much greater use made of waterways for carrying freight wherever possible. Far more beneficial than widening a stretch of the Ml would be for the Government to have a feasibility study of restoring the Grand Union Canal as a major traffic artery linking the Ml at Watford to the Thames Estuary. A 500-ton barge can carry as much cargo as 35 articulated lorries.
I am being brief in deference to other hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, but it is measures of this sort that

we should be taking if we are ever to solve the increasing transport problem in London. The future of London transportation is amenable to a political decision. It can no longer be left to experts to produce through endless permutations of plans which are usually out-of-date before they are published. It is a political decision, and we should resist the insidious interference of powerful motor and road lobbies. Parliament should have the power to take such decisions with due regard to public opinion.
Other hon. Members have made clear the opinion of the public in London and outside London on these motorway proposals. Parliament should be able to make these decisions and should not be presented with fails accomplis. Parliament should take the decisions with due regard to public opinion and show that it is serious in transferring transport from the private to the public sector.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Inevitably in a debate on a subject of this kind a number of us are bound to find ourselves making constituency-type speeches and referring to the problems of our constituencies. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) have both done that. In some degree inevitably I shall want to refer to my constituency.
The hon. Member for Chelsea, in his moving speech about his constituency, referred to the stresses which are made intolerable by traffic. He spoke about traffic thundering along pleasant streets. He was right to refer to those problems, but when he recommended the building of Ringway 1 he may perhaps have overlooked to some degree the consequences that would have, not only for constituencies such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but the constituencies of many other London hon. Members.
I think that that can best be illustrated by quoting from the Greenwich and Blackheath Study published in April 1971. At one point, in describing South-East London—the area which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, my right hon. Friend the Member for


Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), I and others represent—it said:
the road pattern of the study area is essentially the inherited eighteenth-century structure, with the main arteries formed by the radial roads leading to and from the centre of London.
If Ringway 1 is built, inevitably it will draw more and more traffic towards itself. If that happens, it will clog up roads all the way around London, whether they are radial roads which have been built as part of the primary road system, which will presumably have to be built, or secondary roads.
One of the problems which Professor Buchanan was tackling when he was dealing with the problems of my constituency and the surrounding areas was the fact that so much traffic travelling along these roads towards central London destroys the environment in which people live, go to school, go to work and enjoy themselves in places such as Blackheath and Greenwich Park.
I shall refer in a moment in greater detail to one or two problems as they affect my constituency, but it is important to make one general point which has not so far been made and which has received scant attention in the Press. It is common for hon. Members—it has been done on several occasions recently —to talk about the environmental effects of heavy lorries. Indeed, I think that most conservation societies in London— there are three in our area—refer continually to the detrimental effect of heavy lorries parking on and passing along London streets.
What interests me is that very few people appear to refer to the damaging environmental effects of the private car. I think that it is perhaps a reflection on us as Members of Parliament, on civil servants, on planners and on local government officials of one kind and another that we have such a deep vested interest, if one likes to put it that way, because most of us are owners of private cars, that we tend to ignore the environmental effects of private cars, which can often be very serious.
I travelled up by bus today, as I do on many occasions. When I do so, I am able to look out of the window and compare the number of heavy lorries travelling up the A.2 with the number of private cars on the road.

Mr. Jay: Ten to one.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend says 10 to 1, and I think that he is probably right, because what is clogging up our roads is the private car. We have the evidence of last week.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the difference between the heavy lorry and the private car is that it is possible to establish rational route definitions for the former in a way that it is not possible to do for the latter? Although we would all like to see more limitations on both, it is easier in a sense to do it with heavy lorries than with cars.

Mr. Barnett: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. It is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. One can establish definite lorry routes. In fact, one can, as part of a planning decision, ensure that such routes are laid out to suit particular needs of lorry journeys which take place regularly.
The situation in the Trafalgar Road and Woolwich Road area in my constituency is different from that on the A.2 to which I referred earlier. According to Buchanan, the figure for heavy lorries there is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. That seems to me to be a problem that needs solving and could conceivably be solved by building a bridge across the River Thames between, say, Deptford and the Isle of Dogs. That might be the answer to the problem, because I believe the Layfield Report says that the reason why so many lorries drive along that road is that they are driving between the industrial area of Deptford and the industrial area north of the Thames; but they have no need to go through Greenwich. In fact their destination is on the other side of the river and could easily be reached by a direct bridge across the river at a more convenient point.
Essentially, the point I am making— it is one which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has just reinforced—is that at present the proportion of vehicles on the roads which are heavy lorries is relatively small compared with the number of private cars; and secondly, one can to some degree control and plan to suit the kinds of journeys that heavy lorries make. It has often occurred to me that if we were to remove


private cars from the centre of London and from the constituency of the hon. Member for Chelsea, that would go an enormous way towards solving the problem.
The difference between heavy lorries and private cars is that with very few exceptions private car journeys could be unnecessary with the proper provision of public transport, whereas in a majority of cases heavy lorry journeys are unavoidable because they are connected with a business operation, the movement of merchandise from one place to another. I know it has been argued, rightly, that we ought to transfer a greater proportion of freight on to the railways, but no one seriously believes that the vast majority of freight nowadays could be carried by rail without appalling inconvenience. We have to accept the heavy lorry as part of our environment. That being the case, if we were able to do something about the private car the whole environmental situation could be much altered for the better.
Private car journeys, in contrast to the situation concerning heavy lorries, could in most cases be dispensed with if public transport was sufficient. There are exceptions such as disabled people, doctors and perhaps the old and infirm. We might make certain exceptions but we as a society, particularly those who hold responsible positions, have a vested interest in the use of the private car for business journeys. Many people who hold positions of responsibility, whether as Ministers, chairmen of public boards, senior civil servants or in other capacities, use private cars. Therefore, it does not seem to me surprising that as a consequence, when reports are drawn up and debates take place, there is very little mention of this traffic and of the need to restrict—I choose my words carefully—drastically the use of private cars in central London, if not to ban them completely.
I went to Oxford Street, as no doubt many hon. Members have done, and saw the immediate and startling improvement in the environment as a result of the banning of private cars from that area. I was enormously impressed. I would like to see that principle extended much

more widely so that only buses, taxis, vehicles carrying disabled persons and heavy lorries needed to deliver goods to large stores would be able to use an area.
I have one very important constituency point that I would like to raise. It concerns the Dover radial road. The Lay-field Report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North has pointed out, is proposing a rerouting of Ringway 1. What my hon. Friend did not point out—I do not blame him, because this lies in my constituency and not his—was that this makes that piece of motorway which is already being constructed from the Blackwall Tunnel up to Kidbrooke completely irrelevant to whatever motor ringway plans may be adopted. There is no proposal about what is to be done about that. I know it is the subject of an inquiry but there are many families, in both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who are deeply concerned and worried about what is to happen, because the environmental conditions in which they are now living, with traffic pouring off the motorway at colossal speeds straight into a shopping centre and a residential area, have for years caused great distress and worry.
I believe that, given the Layfield Report or, what I hope for, the abolition of Ringway 1, there should be no delay in the continuation of the Dover radial road now that it has been begun in the way that it has. If the Under-Secretary of State is in a position to give an announcement about that tonight, my constituents will be grateful. If not, no doubt he will try to do it as early as possible.
I admired enormously the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North. He spoke with feeling about the area he represents and similar constituencies in the centre of London which are liable to be affected by the ringway. It is right for those who live in the middle area of the suburbs to point out the damage which would be done by extending the radial routes towards the centre of London—damage to the environment and to communities like Deptford which would be broken up and their personalities and souls liable to be destroyed.

8.46 p.m

Mr. Toby Jessel: I want first to revert to a point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope) about Ringway 3. He said that he was against it. I want to stress how strongly I disagree. I am very much in favour of the construction of Ringway 3, the outer London ringway. I am sorry that the Liberal Party's spokesman should have decided to oppose it, as I believe that the need for it is most compelling.
The great growth in the volume of traffic in the Greater London area has not been so much in the radial traffic in and out of London, which has remained largely stable in quantity over the last decade, but rather in the orbital traffic moving around London between one suburban area and another. The growth in movements of that kind has been very great.
In outer London, and in my constituency in particular, the movement of orbital traffic is sharply limited by the position of bridges over the River Thames. Hampton Court Bridge is the only high capacity bridge in the area to cater for orbital traffic. There is nothing upstream until Walton, four or five miles away, and nothing downstream for four or five miles, except Kingston Bridge. But Kingston Bridge points in a different direction and, indeed, straight into a town centre. Consequently, an enormous amount of orbital traffic is directed to Hampton Court Bridge, and this does tremendous harm to the environment of Hampton and the Hampton Hill area. The overwhelming opinion in my constituency, as expressed by local residents' associations and public opinion surveys, is that Ringway 3 should be constructed.
The case for Ringway 3 in essence is not very different from that for Ringway 1. I want to quote from a pamphlet produced by the Greater London Council. It is called "Motorways for London". The pamphlet says:
We need—and are going to need even more —urban motorways for fast, safe travel, avoiding residential roads and shopping centres
The motorways planned by the GLC will be separate from local roads.
The GLC plans the building as early as possible of the motorway box.
Hon. Members opposite will be interested to learn that that pamphlet was published

in October 1966, when the Greater London Council was controlled by the Labour Party. I believe that the Labour Party was right then, and I regret that it is weakening from that position. I believe that its first thoughts on the subject should be supported.
The case for providing for orbital movement in the Greater London area is not very different from the case for providing facilities for traffic between one provincial city and another 10 or 20 miles apart. No one suggests that there should not be a good road between Liverpool and Manchester, Southampton and Portsmouth, Coventry and Birmingham, Bradford and Leeds or Glasgow and Edinburgh. Greater London is a region 30 miles across containing 32 London boroughs with populations of 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000. Yet it is suggested that it is not essential for traffic to be able to move freely between one part of that area and another.
It has been said that no cost-benefit analysis has been carried out on congestion. The Greater London Council carried out such an analysis which showed that the cost of congestion in terms of time wasted and man hours lost was about £150 million a year. That kind of measurement is likely to be woolly and inexact, but a large part of the benefit to be derived from the provision of urban motorways cannot be measured. The environmental improvement obtained from routing heavy traffic so that it does not go past houses cannot be costed. No money value can be put upon that. Therefore, this is a value judgment which ca-not be accurately measured.
There is an enormous amount of public dissatisfaction about the large number of heavy vehicles which go past houses in which people live. Traffic increasingly tends to do so when the main roads get clogged up because they were not built to cater for such a heavy volume of traffic. An ordinary London shopping street has in it shops, houses, pedestrians, buses, cyclists and so on and cannot cope with large quantities of long-distance heavy traffic. It is essential to provide purpose-built roads for it.

Mr. Ronald Brown: What happens when the lorries, after going through the streets the hon. Gentleman has described, finish


up in my constituency? That is where they end, and they are parked outside people's houses every night of the week, seven days a week. What will the hon. Gentleman do about this?

Mr. Jessel: The problem of lorries parked outside houses all night is extremely difficult. Although the Greater London Council and many of the London boroughs want to prevent it, it is difficult for the Metropolitan Police to provide enough officers to enforce bans on the parking of lorries all night. That is an enforcement problem.
We must bear in mind that part of Ringway 1 has already been completed. The East Cross Route—the Blackwall tunnel southern approach—has been constructed and is in use. The northern part is nearly complete and is shortly to be opened. The part of the West Cross Route from White City to Shepherds Bush is already in use. The southern part of the West Cross Route mainly follows the alignment of a railway line, which means that the housing loss will be much less.
As to the North Cross Route and the South Cross Route, the GLC has already said that it is prepared to defer the construction of the North Cross Route and instead to link the East and West Cross Routes with the North Circular, which would be improved and would be what was previously known as part of Ringway 2. The most contentious remaining part, about which naturally the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was concerned, is the South Cross Route. Hon. Members who say they do not want a South Cross Route to be built are implying that they are prepared to tolerate indefinitely the present South Circular Road and other roads across South London as being the provision for traffic wanting to go across South London. The South Circular Road is a hopelessly higgledy-piggledy road. It is not a road at all; it is just a lot of pieces of road strung together, which causes enormous environmental disadvantage in surrounding areas. It is hopelessly inefficient and wastes a great deal of the time of the people using it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), as well as hon. Members opposite, referred to the housing aspect. The number of houses involved

would be about 7,000, and this would be spread over 10 or 12 years, which would be the time taken to construct the whole of the motorway box. Seven hundred houses a year is a tiny fraction of the total rehousing demand in the Greater London area. It amounts to about one-third of 1 per cent. of all the requirements of people who move house each year, and it should surely not be impossible for the GLC and the borough authorities to provide for this very marginal additional need.
The housing shortage in London, to which hon. Members opposite are obviously right to draw attention, is inextricably linked to the employment situation in London, because people come into London from outside to look for jobs, and that makes the housing situation worse. In this context, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), whom I see in his seat, urged on 15th December that action be taken to increase the number of jobs in London. I believe that if we were to restrain the increase in the number of jobs in London and allow it to diminish, the problem of the housing shortage in the London area would be much more quickly solved and it would be quite possible over the next 12 years to provide for people to be rehoused in consequence of the construction of Ringway 1.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for intervening but I think the record ought to be put right. In that debate I did not say that jobs should be increased. I advocated that the departure of manufacturing industries should be slowed down so that we might maintain the right balance of employment in London. I should like to get that clear.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the consequences are the same. If the number of jobs were allowed to slow down rather than an attempt being made to curb that effect, if would be easier to deal more quickly with the housing shortage in London.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Horam: I hope that some of the London hon. Members will forgive a non-London hon. Member for speaking very briefly. I am sure they will not, but I will ask them to, because I think I have some right to speak in this debate, for two reasons.


First, I was actually a member of the Environment and Home Office Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which made the famed—or ill-famed —report we have heard so much about tonight. Secondly, I should like to point out that road problems do not exist only in London. If some hon. Members come to Newcastle, which is my regional capital, they will find similar problems being as badly coped with by a Tory administration up there as no doubt they are being coped with by a Tory administration down here.
I want to comment particularly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), who most persuasively argued the case for the inner London ringway—Ringway 1. I recognise that he is a long-standing advocate of this particular route, and I think that the way he put his argument is the way many people put it. In particular, they argue, as he did, that Ringway 1 does not conflict with the findings of the report on urban transport planning and other similar documents; that in fact it is in tune with this modern, up-to-date thinking. Obviously, the Committee did not consider Ringway 1 in particular because it was considering not particular motorway schemes but the arguments in general. I am sure the hon. Member would accept that.
In my view, Ringway 1 runs counter to the general spirit of the Committee's findings. What is more, it runs counter to two or three of the most crucial general arguments put forward by the Committee. The first is that the most important step that we must take is to shift resources from road spending to spending on public transport. In saying that, the Committee had in mind that, whereas at the moment the proportion of spending of the total transport budget in our major conurbations is roughly 75 per cent. on roads and 25 per cent. on public transport, we should like to reverse that and have, as they do in Hamburg, about 30 per cent. only on roads and 70 per cent. on public transport or, as they do in Munich, as little as 10 per cent. on roads and 90 per cent. on public transport. To suggest starting a scheme costing at the minimum £600 million and, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North is correct, possibly £800 million

makes it impossible to achieve the shift in resources about which the Committee was talking.
Another matter about which the Committee felt strongly and had some rather sharp comments to make concerned the social and environmental costs of road building and the social and environmental factors involved. We pointed out that very little account had been taken of them so far. Ringway 1 is extremely bad from this point of view in that it passes through very sensitive areas when seen from the environmental and social aspects. It must be borne in mind that environmental and social damage is not lessened by shifting the route from Blackheath to Deptford. On the contrary, it increases it, since it takes it through areas which have the least environmental goodness about them and from which a roadway would take away even more.
A third crucial argument of the Committee was that, before any more substantial road-building could take place which in certain circumstances obviously is justified on a selective basis, we had to use our existing road space more efficiently. Efficient users of road space like buses and taxis which can pack in a lot of people should have more of the existing space than the private car which uses road space inefficiently, very often carry-only one person on the typical journey to work. It cannot be argued that we use our existing road space in London efficiently when only 10 per cent. of the total number of people travelling to central London come by private cars and take up 85 or 90 per cent. of the total road space. Ipso facto we must make some changes on this score before thinking about building new roads.
For all those general reasons, as a member of the Committee which produced that report, I believe that Ringway 1 flies totally in the face of its general philosophy.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The contribution of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) was welcome in two senses. First it cast a refreshing light on the reality that many of these themes are not party political in the normal sense. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman conceded the contention of my


hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) that the Committee's report bore no direct and specific relationship to the idea of Ringway 1. There may be a generalised proclivity against the concept, but it does not go further than that.
It was very welcome to hear a number of my hon. Friends reminding the House that the extraordinary conversion or seeming volte-face of the Labour Party on all these motorway proposals in London, with the honourable exceptions of a number of individuals in the Labour Party, is probably due to the proximity of this debate to an important event on 12th April, namely the local elections in the Greater London area.
Naturally, the public are more likely to be beguiled by the proposition that there are sufficient doubts and uncertainties about these enormously expensive schemes as to transcend the narrow party political base. Therefore, it ill behoves Members of the Labour Party, at their eleventh hour conversion, to claim that they have been thinking about this matter all along and that their environmental propensity is greater than that of many hon. Members on this side of the House. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately the Liberal spokesman said that, although the Russians had invented everything throughout history, the Liberal Party had plans for everything even in advance of the Russians. That is not true either.
Despite the party political equations, there are none the less growing long-term doubts about all these matters affecting great urban areas like London. I am not suggesting that in narrow terms we can easily come down for or against the idea of Ringway 1. It is to some extent easier to make the resolute decision now about Ringways 2 and 3 bearing in mind that there are still some areas of doubt about the routes to be selected. But regarding Ringway 1 it is difficult to come down strongly on one side or the other.
There is enormous attraction in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. In order to relieve congestion on roads between the areas bounded by this kind of urban motorway, the idea espoused by the notion

of Ringway 1 is attractive. At the same time, the long-term environmental transportation revolution must be that the public are beset by growing doubts about the rationality of this proposal. Put another way, we are concerned about protecting the private motorist, but the mood and atmosphere in recent years has changed. Increasingly, we as a Parliament, the experts outside and other people are moving towards the idea of physical restrictions on private motorists in urban concentrations, at the same time accepting the firm principle that this kind of future policy, so long as it is drawn up in a careful and cautious way and does not mean a massive upset of existing patterns, would meet public approval if people were given the opportunity to enjoy the fruits and benefits of policies of restraint on the private car.
Furthermore, I do not think that the motor car manufacturers need panic that as a result of that future restraint they will not find it so easy to sell motor cars. I believe that the propensity to own a motor car is sufficiently strong to overcome the restrictions which might in future be imposed on it in certain areas.
I welcome the Oxford Street scheme. I believe that in future a balance may be achieved between motorway structures of a certain kind in urban areas and at the same time saying that the quid pro quo is to restrict far more the use of the private car. We may restrict other vehicles, but that is a separate argument.
We have an increasingly urgent obligation because the public are no longer prepared to listen to expert planners saying "We need a road here. We know better than the public. We are having an inquiry, but, even when the inquiry has completed its exercise, we, the experts in a collective sense, will reach the decision on your behalf."
I am not decrying what Layfield has done. It is a massive and excellent document. However, the public in the overall area encompassed by London are increasingly saying "We demand from our legislators, be they local or national, the environmental protection which has only just begun in terms of specific policies". I believe that this revolution is most welcome.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: What is the use of having a report from the Expenditure Committee on road transport if no heed is given to its recommendations? I refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 107, which is in thick type and says,
We recommend that, as an urgent priority, all trunk and principal road schemes of urban road building which have not reached the exchange of contract stage should be re-examined ab initio."
Why will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not give effect to that recommendation, particularly with reference to the scheme which he has for the A.405 and A.41M in Watford, which is creating alarm and despondency among thousands of Watford people. It will create havoc in Watford. First, it will box in large sections of Watford. Secondly, it will bulldoze or drive a road through two schools which are near Watford. Thirdly, at one point it will spill seven lanes into one lane with all the resulting chaos.
I have had over 1,000 letters from Watford residents protesting about the scheme. I have sent them to the Secretary of State. I hope that they will choke or drown him. I have had no response from him. However, I want him to give effect to these protects. I have asked him many a time if he will allow a deputation from Watford composed, for example, of the town clerk, the borough engineer, the chairman of the highways committee and myself to meet him and to explain its alternative proposals. Such a deputation would know what it is talking about. It would not be like the Minister, who is merely rubber-stamping decisions which his civil servants have made.
To this request I have received nothing more than a curt brush-off from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I ask him now at least to have the courtesy to give a deputation 20 minutes of his valuable time so that it can put its case to him and so that he may be able to re-examine the scheme ab initio within the proposals which the Expenditure Committee recommend.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: For seven years I have been a member of the GLC committee which has been concerned

with these proposals. It is right to say that for the Opposition on the GLC there has been no sudden conversion. At the beginning a high proportion of Labour members of the GLC doubted the expert official plan. Let us be under no illusion, that that is what it was. The original plans were produced by the GLC road engineers as a means of fulfilling what they considered would be the road traffic demand in London. In fact, the demand will not be as great as was once thought. The London Traffic Survey, Vol. II, Tables 17–18, estimated that from 26·8 million vehicle miles a day in 1962 the demand would increase to 65 million vehicle miles a day in 1981. The increase has now slowed down. The original estimated increase of 5 per cent. has now reduced to 2 per cent. The GLC now says that there will be about 50 million vehicle miles a day in 1981.
That reduction is due to a whole host of factors, including a reduction in population and the fact that people are not using cars to the same extent. A point that has been forgotten is that the number of vehicle trips made in London is about 7 million a day, and the number of trips by public transport is about the same. Thus, the figures are roughly equivalent for the movement of people. Of course, vehicle trip movements include freight vehicles, and as there is an average of 1·5 people in a car we have a rough physical balance.
The need for movement by car is frequently from one facility to another— for example, from home to work or from a social facility to somewhere else. The difficulty is that if the ringway is built— the Secretary of State has not yet favoured us by moving the amendment, so that we do not know what he will say— and the Government go ahead with Ring-way 1 on the Layfield proposals, the amount of traffic generated in the inner area of London will increase considerably.
At the moment even with the high cost of public transport in London there is a rough balance between the number of people using public transport and those using private vehicles. The cost of public transport is roughly £150 million to £200 million a year but, assuming that there are 40 million vehicle miles per day and assuming the cost per vehicle mile to be only 5p—that is under-estimating—the cost of movement of private vehicles is


£700 million a year at least, and it may be far more. So our difficulty is that we have a rough physical balance between the two modes but that the financial difference for the people who pay to go by public transport and those who drive vehicles is not in balance at all.
The Government say in paragraph 43 of their statement on Layfield that they want to build the ringways to relieve congestion. In a previous debate on the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, I said categorically that there were no official records of considerable congestion. In fact the official GLC documents show that vehicle speeds have risen and my statements in that debate have not been challenged. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in claiming that ringways would relieve congestion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that we need these new roads for lorry traffic and that employers and industrialists need them. Of course they do, but in Acton, which is close to the Great West Road, Western Avenue and the North Circular Road, many factories are empty. So it is not necessarily a question of industrialists requiring road access, because there are many empty factories in London close to existing trunk roads.
If new ringways are built they will undoubtedly increase the generation of car transport well above its present level. We need an integrated public transport system, so that while the actual vehicle mileage per day may rise it will be on relatively short trips and people in those vehicles will be able to interchange with public transport. It is unfortunate that we have not heard the reasons for the amendment, and I shall listen to the Secretary of State's speech with great interest.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Labour Party in London was chided by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for, in my view prudently, having second thoughts about the wisdom of these motorway schemes. The reason why they did was that they listened to public opinion, heard the evidence and rightly changed their minds. But it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to make this sort

of charge when, after all, they have performed somersaults more acrobatically than Olga Korbut at her best on almost every important issue of the day.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to the East Cross Route, when he talked about our not being able to count the cost in pounds and pence. My constituents lived with the building of that route for years. Day in and day out they suffered from the misery of the pollution, the dirt and the noise and they are still suffering now that that road is in operation. Much more vehicular use is now made of the secondary roads in nearby areas, the whole community has been cut in half, ripped to pieces, and what kind of happiness can people enjoy living in that kind of area?
The hon. Member seemed to dismiss this as of no acount. I can tell him that the failure of the GLC to take account of the real misery which has been heaped upon the lives of these people will not be lightly forgiven. It is misery not only to the elderly but to mothers with young kids, who now have to go great distances to shop. Coupled with this, it has to be remembered, they are deprived also of an effective transport system.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Member aware that, when the southern half of the East Cross Route, the Blackwall Tunnel Southern Approach, was completed, the local residents were so grateful to the GLC's resident engineer for the consideration care and courtesy that he had shown them that they had a collection to buy him a present?

Mr. Davis: That is very touching. As a result of that intervention, I must offer the hon. Member a fortnight's free holiday on the Kingsmead Estate.
What is quite extraordinary is that the acceptance of this single item by the Secretary of State, as a matter of principle, when he ignores everything else in the Layfield Report represents a complete capitulation, a rather squalid capitulation, to commercial interests. The Government do not really talk about the humane considerations involved, to which I have alluded, and the considerations for serious transport planning. After all, this is an integral part of a sensible traffic system for London in order to get rid of the chaos which is clogging the arteries


of our city at the present time. There must be an effective system of restraint on the motor car, but that is hardly mentioned by the Conservative Party. Private transport on the present scale cannot be accommodated in central London without imposing impossible, insuperable burdens on our whole public transport system. That point has been made with considerable emphasis by the Expenditure Committee. I had wished to quote some extracts from its report, but time does not permit that.
One of the questions which the Expenditure Committee posed was whether our roads are being used at present in the most efficient manner. It is clear that they are not. I agree with the Committee's conclusions that we must have more rapid transit systems where the cost is justified, that there must be an allocation of a much greater proportion of road space to physically separated bus lanes, that the Department of the Environment must make provision for operating subsidies to public transport on a much greater scale than is happening today, and that there must be much greater restriction and control of parking space. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) alluded to that latter point in an all too brief intervention.
The alternatives available seem to have been totally ignored by Conservative hon. Members tonight. We have an opportunity for developing public transport systems in deprived areas such as Hackney. We have the North London line, which some people are thinking of closing down. The people who promote the idea —mostly Conservatives—say that there will be a saving of about £400,000. But what is the social cost of depriving passengers of that service? If that could be measured in terms of pounds and pence, it would be bound to be in excess of £1 million. Passengers will have to find other means of transport. But this factor is simply ignored.
I read with interest recently that London Transport has certain plans for developing a new express bus service in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury. But that seemed to me something that we were likely to have for the future. We have had in Hackney all

too many plans for the future. There may be an underground system in Hackney one day, perhaps 20 years ahead. But Hackney is a deprived area, a stress area and a forgotten area. It is impossible for the hon. Member for Twickenham to understand the frustrations of the people and the denial of elementary rights, which they see others enjoying.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the cost in terms of pollution, loss of amenity and inconvenience. I have referred to the situation at Eastway about which so many of my constituents complain to me vigorously. It is interesting that at page 262 of the Layfield Report, when speaking about secondary roads, it says
The picture presented to us of the composition of the secondary road network was somewhat confused.
That reflects so many of the arguments we have heard from the Government benches tonight. Unless we have an effective secondary road system the whole argument is totally bogus.
The Government have gone mad. They have gone mad over Maplin and over defence. But is it too late to hope that on the issue of Ringway 1 they may still have a lucid interval?

Mr. Marcus Lipton: rose—

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I must at this stage disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who I know, like many others would have wished to take part in this all too brief debate. However, I have rationed myself to only 15 minutes and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I wish to allow the Minister as much time as possible to answer fully the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who opened the debate with his usual clarity and force, as well as by the many other hon. Members from both sides in support of him in the debate.
I must begin by declaring a double interest in the subject. My own home in Putney is, or was—who can be sure?— directly threatened by the original proposals of Ringway 2. Secondly, the borough of Tower Hamlets, representation of which I share in this House with


my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), is now to face a new threat of a motorway driving through the middle of the Isle of Dogs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), who spoke so clearly and so strongly against the new proposal to route a major motorway through a working-class community and away from one of the best-endowed areas in London.
I do not think that my interests in this matter are strange for a London Member. I have a feeling that most Members who represent London constituencies, as well as Members who represent constituencies elsewhere, know, either from their own direct experience of those places where they live or through close friends or members of their families and constituents, one of the most appalling problems of our time. That is the problem of coping in our cities with motor traffic, with the enormous disturbance it can create and the damage it can do to settled communities.
I must say a few words about what the urban motorway means to a community through which it passes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) referred to part of his community being cut to ribbons. That is a graphic description of what a motorway can do to a community when it passes through. I am not thinking only of the people who are physically displaced because their home lies directly in the path of a motorway—because they may be the more fortunate. I am not thinking either—and they are much more numerous—of those who are sufficiently near the motorway to suffer all the attendant disadvantages of noise, fumes, dust and the like.
I am referring to the still larger numbers who find their lives cut in two by a great wall of concrete. It may be that their homes and shops lie to one side and their schools and hospitals on the other. The vast disruption of the life of a community is made inevitable if an urban motorway is built. If it is built at ground level people in the area have to climb up high on bridges, which is not easy for the elderly, the infirm and mothers with young children. Alternatively they are to be forced to go underground through what all too often appears to be a damp, poorly-lit, evil-smelling passageway, the

kind of place that many of us have experienced at the Elephant and Castle or Marble Arch.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: With the risk of being mugged.

Mr. Shore: That is another growing problem too. If the community is not faced with that it is faced with a motorway which soars high in the air casting its great shadow over neighbouring houses and streets and blighting the landscape and the visual aspect for miles around. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that an urban motorway is an offence, an imposition, an act of aggression on a community. It is something which can be contemplated only if there is overwhelming justification for building it.
That brings me to the heart of the argument and the debate. We believe that the necessary justification has not been produced either in the GLC's own report or in the two-volume report produced by the Layfield Panel. Most of us have found the Layfield Report a puzzling document. I join with other hon. Members in commending the Layfield Panel on its analysis of London's traffic problems—and it did not confine itself, as the original GLC plan did, simply to the question of roads. It heavily concentrates on and gives priority to the need for adequate, fast, comfortable public transport systems as its number one priority in this great city. Secondly, it emphasises strongly the crucial rôle of traffic management and control, and this is absolutely right.
The report also shows that it is aware of the great costs involved—not only in financial terms, but in terms of the poor rate of return on investment, the effect on housing, the community and so on. Because the report shows its sensitivity to these problems—a sensitivity similar to that which underlay the analysis made by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure which considered urban motorways—we find its conclusions so perverse. Its conclusions do not flow from the analysis but contradict it.
This is what I find so puzzling, and I wish to offer an explanation. I believe that the Layfield Panel was influenced, I believe wrongly, by two factors. First, it has taken an optimistic view of the


possibilities of avoiding environmental damage in new road construction. There may be certain possibilities which we have not yet fully developed in this country. There may be something in the suggestion about tunnelling which has been referred to by several hon. Members. But the cost would be enormous and would carry to astronomical heights the figures which have been bandied around. Unless something of that kind is attempted, it is almost impossible to avoid substantial environmenntal damage in the form of new road construction. This is where the optimism of the panel has betrayed it.
Secondly, the Layfield Panel made a great error in believing that a motorway box would canalise traffic and that it would siphon off and away from other roads the traffic which previously used them, thus improving the environment of the areas so relieved. That was the kind of vision which was offered to the House by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley).
I have seen no evidence—either in the real world of road-building or evidence of a desk kind argued in the report— which would lead me to believe that this happy result would follow from new road building. On the contrary, there appears to be good reason for believing that only a small part of the traffic aimed at would be canalised. Indeed, a distinguished road economist puts at no higher than 13 per cent. the figure for the traffic aimed at in the inner London area which might be attracted to an inner London motorway box. On the other hand, a substantial increase in private car traffic could well be generated among inner London car owners.
In addition, by proposing that the existing national motorways which now peter out at the edge of our conurbation should be carried forward by radials into the inner London box, it seems certain that much more traffic will be brought in from outside London than would otherwise have been the case. This point has not seriously been disputed. We hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say something about it.
The doubts which I have expressed in summary form and which have been expressed by hon. Members on all sides

are too widely held and too substantial, simply to be shrugged off. A full and informed discussion and examination is needed before any of these proposals are adopted. It is crucial that we should get this right because it is an irreversible decision. Our children and grandchildren will have to live with this for as far ahead as we can see. It is also important to have this examination to win public acceptability of what is proposed.
The Government have made a serious mistake here. The Layfield Panel spent well over two years examining the GLC proposals. It heard thousands of proposals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took just over two months to make a major decision upon it. This is wrong. It is not only that many of us suspect that he needed more time to think about it; it is also that no opportunity has been given to the people of London to consider and react to the Layfield Report in whole or in part.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made the point about the lack of confidence in the diktat or views of bureaucratic planners in some anonymous room in County Hall. He spoke of the scepticism with which such decisions are greeted. This is all too true. I will make my one constituency point here. What does the Secretary of State believe is the reaction in a community like the Isle of Dogs? There had previously been no possibility of a giant motorway being brought across. Suddenly a panel which had been set up to consider the Greater London motorway plan and other matters came up with the bright idea that it might be a good thing to relieve the people of Blackheath of the prospects of a motorway running through their area by putting it through North Deptford, across the river and through the Isle of Dogs. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that these people will have any confidence that that decision was rationally arrived at or was the result of a fair and impartial analysis of all the factors concerned? I do not think they believe that for a moment.
What they would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he went to speak to them—maybe they will come to this House and tell him what they


think, because they are people of that kind—is "We suspect that the people in Blackheath hired a better man, or a more expensive man." They would say that the people of Blackheath hired the intellectual resources available to argue their case and put the best possible alternative to the Minister. It is important that long before decisions of principle or of any other kind are taken the people in the affected community, the people of London as a whole, should be allowed to consider, to debate and to make up their minds and let the Minister know what they think about what is not now the original Greater London Plan but an entirely new document.
Even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not allow a reference to democracy it is surely surprising for him to come out flat-footed in the way he has done when only three or four months ago the Greater London Council made a radically different proposal about the motorway box system, a proposal which has not been submitted to the Layfield Panel for its consideration. As he must be aware, there is a very good chance that there will be new tenants in County Hall on 12th April and they have already made clear that the Labour Party in London will not have the inner London motorways, either Ringway 1 or Ring-way 2, and that their thinking on these matters is entirely different from that of the Minister and of the Tory council.
I commend our motion and inquire of the Minister what is the meaning and purpose of the amendment. We deliberately phrased our motion so that it could be acceptable if the Minister accepted the proposals in the Select Committee's Report and if he was genuinely prepared to submit all future GLC motorway proposals to the criteria established in that report. He has tabled an amendment which simply reaffirms his general acceptance of the conclusions in the Layfield Report There is no mention at all of the Inner London Motorway Box. We must know whether he will reaffirm his acceptance of the Inner London Motorway Box which he appeared to accept and endorse in his statement two or three weeks ago. If he does, I assure him that we shall vote against him not merely on the motion but also on the amendment.

9.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move to leave out from 'and' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof 
welcomes the Government's endorsement of the view of the Panel of Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan that there should be comprehensive and co-ordinated transport policies for London in the fields of public transport, traffic management and restraint and an improvement of the environment.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) opened this debate forcefully and with feeling, and I think it is a matter on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown that they are deeply concerned. My difficulty with the motion to which the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred—I appreciate that it was put down in a conciliatory mood—is that it would be impossible for me as Secretary of State to bind myself to a whole series of planning decisions which flow from the report. The House should bear in mind that I met its wishes by publishing the Layfield Report as soon as was possible. When the London County Council produced its first plan, that plan sat on the Minister's desk for two years and was then produced with a thousand modifications. I felt it right in this case, where so many matters are to be considered in the light of the very detailed analysis to which the right hon. Member for Stepney referred, that we should have a full and ample discussion.
I believe the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Mr. Moyle) said that he fought for 11 years against a series of local authorities, London County Council and the Greater London Council, with both parties at various times in the majority. I do not want to make a party political point on this occasion, but I think that what has been said by many hon. Members shows that it is much easier to be a negative planner than to be a positive one.
I have tried to make such decisions as would throw the debate open and would remove uncertainties wherever I can. I think I have removed uncertainties with reference to Ringway 2. It is clear that the southern part is not to be approved, and I have opened the way to the GLC to suggest that the North Circular road could initially be regarded as part of


Ringway 1. I could not so do myself because as Secretary of State I can consider only what is before me, and, as the right hon. Member for Stepney has said, modifications might have to come forward in due course which I would have to consider formally. The Ringway 3 proposal is very controversial, and I thought it right to leave that on the side for the time being. I thought it right to indicate approval in principle of Ring-way 1 because it is essentially part of a three-part programme. One has to consider ringways in the context of traffic restraint, traffic management and public transport. This is the difficult decision to which the Layfield Panel had to come. It put its first emphasis, as the GLC has done, upon public transport and traffic management and restraint, but it said that even if we took all the measures recommended we would still, in principle, need Ringway 1.
As I said in my initial statement, there is no commitment on precise alignments or on phasing. I cannot prejudge what detailed objections may come forward and have to be considered at a whole series of further public inquiries if necessary. This is the difficulty about estimating the number of houses that might be affected, or the cost. There are certain figures on the record and, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said, set out in various public documents, and if there were an inquiry into detailed alignments those are the kind of factors which would have to be further considered. One would have to consider what replacements would have to be made of houses affected.
Then there is the whole question of tunnels. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North spoke of the advantages of tunnels in certain circumstances, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell). The GLC has spoken of the possibility of having tunnels if the North Cross route as originally proposed is ever brought forward, but it has said that this can be postponed until we see what happens if Ringway 1 is constructed on the basis of using the North Circular Road. There is the problem of expense if tunnels are used, but that may be the right thing to do.
I ask the House to believe that there is a genuine concern by the Government

as well as by everyone else to make the best judgment that we can about these extremely difficult problems. For my part, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) that there is no point in considering road proposals piecemeal without regard to their ultimate purpose. There is no point in moving traffic from one bottleneck to another, just a little faster.
As the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North said, new urban motorways do not of themselves reduce traffic, and I think that that must be accepted. On the other hand, they may, in certain circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said, improve the environment in other residential parts of the city. What we have to try to do is to put these matters into perspective and take a judgment over a period of years, and not just perhaps in the context of one local election.
In the 10 years during which I have been concerned with these matters the wheel has turned full cycle. To be a conservationist now is to be progressive, and to be planner is to be something of a reactionary. I think that both the right hon. Member for Stepney and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) were on a good point when they said that, even if we are not anti-planners or non-planners today, there is a deep scepticism about many traditional claims of planners to be able to deal with finality and absolute confidence with the unknown future.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member was not here earlier, and I have a number of points to answer in a short time.
I find that the Press and public are very much concerned about these matters. We are agreed on a large number of things. We are trying to think of the city as an environment for the individual. We are trying to think of the city as a place in which to live, as well as a place in which to move about. But we have to move about in it, and this is the thinking behind the ringway philosophy. Mr. George Gardiner, in his good book which can be recommended to the House, "The Changing Life of London", says:
All traffic studies show that what London needs is not new roads into the centre but new roads round it. It is significant that 20


per cent. of the traffic in Central London does not want to be there at all. It wants to go out on the other side but there is no way for it to go".
Our estimates are that probably the number of cars and lorries in that position is nearer 25 per cent.
This is very relevant to our whole consideration. We have tended to build up London on the basis of radial roads coming right into the centre without sufficient regard for the need for orbital roads. I tried in the statement I made on 19th February to stress what the amendment refers to, the need for a co-ordinated approach. As I said in paragraph 30 of that statement:
The Panel stress the need for a comprehensive and co-ordinated transport policy in four major fields: public transport, traffic management and restraint, improvement of the environment and road building and improvement generally".
It is not, of course, possible to introduce a complete and final set of policies at once. Policies need to be kept under review, and some decisions—for example, on the shape of the primary road network —take effect over a longer time span than others. What is accepted as important is that individual decisions should be taken in the context of decisions for the whole range of relevant topics.
I set out in paragraph 33 the Government view on the subject of public transport. I said:
The Government agree with the Panel that public transport in all forms should be given higher priority than proposed in the Plan, since it uses fewer resources, serves more people and does less damage to the environment than the private car. They also agree that if it is to do its job properly it must be reliable, convenient and comfortable. They have already recognised the urgent need for better public transport by such measures as committing nearly £125 million in grants for major improvements to London rail services, for new London Transport buses and for new bus lanes, and offering grant for a Thames hovercraft service".
That is also dealt with at very great length in the statement.

Mr. Lipton: What about homes?

Mr. Rippon: I agree that housing is properly London's No. 1 priority as the Greater London Council says, but we are now discussing transport problems which are no less difficult in their way. I went

on to deal with traffic management and restraint in paragraph 37:
The Government accept that improved public transport and new road building on any realistic scale will still need to be accompanied by better traffic management which will canalise traffic on to the most suitable routes and by increased traffic restraint. Such measures will reduce the demand for road space, relieve congestion, and protect the environment.
I went on to deal with parking controls and other matters with which Layfield deals.
Only when one has dealt with the public transport aspect and traffic restraint and management, which come first in the time scale, can one come on to consider these very controversial road proposals. Here one has to accept, as I say in paragraph 42:
London's system of mainly radial roads is ill-adapted to orbital movement, which is particularly important to much commercial traffic. Among the consequences of this deficiency are heavy congestion of the radial system, especially in the centre and at other nodal points, severe economic penalties through inefficient movement of goods and people, and great environmental damage from traffic using residential streets.
That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea.
The panel found after exhaustive consideration of a great volume of evidence"—
it is worth remembering that this panel set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), was very different from the ordinary inquiry under a single inspector, a very powerful panel which sat for over 200 days—
that some ring roads were essential. They took the view with full regard to their recommendations for much greater restraint of traffic for many improvements in public transport and in the light of their view about the likely future levels of population and employment. In the Government's view they were plainly right to do so.
It was a difficult decision for the panel to take, and inevitably controversial, but we should pay tribute to the obvious care it took in reaching its conclusion.
The motorway box was only part of the package of recommendations by the panel. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) was right to talk about restraint on private cars, but wrong in saying that his views were not shared by anyone else. Whether one is on this side of the House or on the other side, or on one side or


other of the GLC, it is fundamental that we cannot deal with the situation in the inner area of London without some further restraint on private cars.
The aim of the GLC, announced in the excellent document it has just produced called "Living with Traffic", is to reduce the amount of traffic in central London by at least 10 or 15 per cent. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) paid tribute to what has been done in Oxford Street. The GLC says:
Without the inner ringway for London, schemes such as Oxford Street will become increasingly difficult to achieve and the development of quiet residential areas well nigh impossible.
It is no more than most other cities have faced, but even so the main body of its recommendations concern traffic management and improved public transport.

Mr. Shore: I understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the need for London to have more possibility for orbital movement. That is one thing. But he said when he made his statement something much more specific, more definite and more worrying to many of us in London about accepting in principle that Ringway I should remain in the plan. Can he clarify this and relate the two?

Mr. Rippon: I said that the Government agreed with the Layfield Report in principle, for the reasons I have given, that it was right to have a ringway on the lines of Ringway 1, although not necessarily following exactly the same lines as proposed. In the case of the North Cross Route, of course, the GLC has certain modifications in mind.
The House must see the decision against the background of other proposals for traffic restraint and traffic management. The GLC and Layfield concluded that one cannot have this traffic restraint with all its benefits in the central area without at any rate one ring-way. There are 32 recommendations in

"Living with Traffic" and I will quote only four of them:
Large lorries with no business there should be banned from central London.
The possibility of further bus and taxi streets must be urgently investigated.
A programme for the creation of relatively traffic-free areas must be drawn up.
A programme for reserving busy shopping streets wholly or partially for pedestrians should be developed.

All these things would, in the view of the Government, the GLC and Layfield, create a better environment for the great majority of people living in the centre of London.

The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) referred to the report of the Expenditure Committee on urban transport planning, which the Government welcome. It is a valuable contribution to our thinking and we shall take it into account in framing future policy. It covers a vast range, and I cannot deal with it tonight.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation that we should re-examine ab initio everything We cannot go as far as that, but we have accepted the recommendation of the Urban Motorways Committee and are applying it in full, which means that we are having regard to the need to look at all these matters very carefully in the context not only of Layfield but of the Select Committee's report. All this shows that we are thinking very much more on the same lines than many right hon. and hon. Members are prepared to accept.

Mr. Lipton: Ringway: I will involve the destruction of 1,600 buildings in Lambeth.

Mr. Walter Harrison: rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 277, Noes 266.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Benyon, W.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Biffen, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biggs-Davison. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter




Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Havers, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Bray, Ronald
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Redmond, Robert


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton E)


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chapman, Sydney
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffery


Clegg, Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Roberts Wyn (Conway)


Cooke Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooper, A. E.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rost Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell Sir Ronald


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas Norman


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crowder, F.P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J.R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld.Maj.-Gen.Jack
Kirk, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Simeons, Charles


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dixon, Piers
Lament, Norman



Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Seref, Harold


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)
Sproat, Iain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, R. W. N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Sutcliffe, John


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fowler, Norman
Mather Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.




Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp;Stone)
Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner, Edward




Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mitchhell, Lt,-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Trew, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gorst John
Money, Ernie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gower Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mudd, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



 



Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. 
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.)
Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.


Atkinson, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnes, Michael
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Maude, Angus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Bottomley. Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfied, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O' Halloran, Michael


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Cant,R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter



Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cronin, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pendry, Tom


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn, Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman Gerald
Radice, Giles


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Delargy, Hugh
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Faulds, Andrew
Machin, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Likeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David


 




Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Tuck, Raphael
Whitehead, Phillip


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Urwin, T. W.
Whitlock, William


Strang, Gavin
Varley, Eric G.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Taverns, Dick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, W. T. (Warringion)


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wallace, George
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Weitzman, David



Tomney, Frank
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tope, Graham
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. John Golding and


Torney, Tom
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House urges the Government to take full account of the Report of the Expendi-

ture Committee on Urban Transport Planning in framing its future transport policies, and welcomes the Government's endorsement of the view of the Panel of Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan that there should be comprehensive and co-ordinated transport policies for London in the fields of public transport, traffic management and restraint and an improvement of the environment.

Orders of the Day — VALUE ADDED TAX

10.11 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 1) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 324), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
This order requires an affirmative resolution because some of the changes apply the standard rate of tax to items which previously were zero rated or exempt. The order makes changes in the descriptions of supplies which are zero rated or exempt from VAT under Schedules 4 and 5 of the Finance Act 1972.
There have been full and continuing discussions with various sectors of trade and industry over the past months to consider the detailed effects of some of the zero rated and exempt provisions in the Finance Act 1972, and I acknowledge the help and co-operation given by different trades and trade associations in these consultations. As a result of the discussions, the Government have decided that it would be right to make certain changes to Schedules 4 and 5, though I feel bound to say that they are mostly of a fairly specialised nature.
Contrary to the view expressed in some parts of the House there have not been statutory changes to the arrangements to date, and the order is an omnibus one, which covers a number of changes regarded as necessary in the light of the further discussions which have taken place.
Much of the detail is esoteric but if there are specific points which hon. Members wish to raise 1 shall, as always, do my best to answer them.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Haywood and Royton): I was delighted to hear the Financial Secretary make one of his briefer speeches. I am even more delighted that we have not heard any more talk of the reform of the tax system, and that it was very simple, broad based, free from anomalies, and so on—

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): 'Tis.

Mr. Barnett: I do not know whether that is supposed to mean "it is". I noticed that the Financial Secretary was not agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, and I am not surprised. I did not notice the Financial Secretary agree with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he confessed himself to have been wrong about children's shoes and clothing. After hearing all that the Financial Secretary had to say, I feel that he will not find it quite so easy to agree that all the wonderful words that he used in support of this great tax were all wrong. It was not just a matter of children's shoes and clothing. It ruined the hon. Gentleman's whole argument about anomaly-free taxes. However, I will not go on about that.
I have a feeling that some of the items in the first order are not quite so technical as the Financial Secretary would have us believe. I think that some of them are designed to prevent tax avoidance before it even arises. Otherwise, why amend some of the provisions contained in the 1972 Finance Act, as the order does? I should be interested to know why the provisions relating to holidays were changed, why the provisions relating to advertisements were changed, and, above all, why the provisions relating to deionised water were changed.
I must confess that I genuinely did not know what deionised water was. That is an awful thing to admit.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Terrible!

Mr. Barnett: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was not available at the time. I should have been able to ask him, because I am sure he knows what it is. However, he not being available, I looked it up in one of the scientific journals of the House. I was astonished to find exactly what ionisation and deionisation is:
With few exceptions the great utility of ion exchange rests with the ability to use and reuse the ion exchange materials. For example, in water softening:
2R̄Na++Ca2+=R̄2Ca2++2Na+.
I have always wanted to say that in the House. I am sure that the Hansard reporters will get it exactly right.
We are also told:
The exchange R̄ in the sodium ion form is able to exchange for calcium and thus remove calcium from hard water and to replace it with an equivalent quantity of sodium.
All that is apparently to be subject to the standard rate of VAT. I do not know why that should be. After all, this learned journal also tells us that water softening is important. It says:
Hard waters which contain principally calcium and magnesium ions cause scale in power-plant boilers, water pipes, and domestic cooking utensils. Hard waters also cause soap precipitation producing an undesirable gray curd and a waste of soap.
We do not have this problem in the North-West because we have very nice, soft water like the very nice people there. But people in London and other parts of the country have hard water. It seems a little hard that they should now have to pay value added tax to soften their water. I understand that if, in building a new house, a water softener is installed it would ordinarily be free from VAT. I can see that the Financial Secretary is wondering whether that is so. I see his PPS dashing off to make sure whether it is or not.

Mr. Higgins: I was merely reminiscing on our previous debates.

Mr. Barnett: I understand that if a water softener is put in during the building of a house it will not be subject to VAT. If, however, it is put in later it is subject to VAT. I should be delighted to hear that that is not so, that deionisation is nothing terrible—that it is not important, is merely a technical amendment, and nothing more than the distilled water used in car batteries. I do not know. I should also be glad to know whether water softeners used by householders in hard water areas will be subject to VAT. There are already enough things VAT-able without adding water softeners. I shall be delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman exactly what the situation is. I hope that he will give me the answers to the various points which I have made.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I shall seek to answer the various points made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). The hon. Gentleman normally prefaces his technical remarks with various generalities. I am bound to tell him that my right hon. and hon. Friends

on the Treasury Bench are unanimous in their view that the proposals made in the Budget were absolutely justified and splendid.
As for anomalies, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Budget proposal to zero rate purchase taxed foods gets rid of at least three anomalies which would otherwise have existed. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a difficulty over the distinction between biscuits and chocolate biscuits. That difficulty has gone. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may remember that there was a distinction between yoghurt and frozen yoghurt. Thirdly, there was the question of certain proprietary forms of soft drinks, and rose hip syrup. The Budget proposals make it a less anomalous tax than it was before.

Mr. Barnett: That is what we were trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman to do, and he refused consistently throughout the whole of our debates. As we are talking about a general order, and as he is talking about sweets, and so on, can he confirm that sweets eaten on the premises of a cinema are free from VAT?

Mr. Higgins: Where catering is provided the usual provisions will apply. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised various general points, and I must not be tempted too far. If he wants to obtain an answer on that point he would be better advised to pursue the matter when the appropriate occasion arises.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned deionised water, holidays and advertisements, and, in particular, the wording relating to those matters. With regard to Article 3—purified water—which is an amendment to Schedule 4, Group 2, the relief under that group in that schedule of the Finance Act, was intended to be restricted to ordinary potable water, by analogy with the relief given to food. The hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will recall our debate on that matter. However, purified water is now made by other processes than distillation—for example, by deionisation. Such water is used for the same purposes as distilled water and has almost completely replaced it in some respects. The exclusion from relief has therefore been extended to include purified water, and thus brings the group into, line with what was intended.
If hon. Members will cast their minds back to last year they will recall that we discussed advertising services. The purpose of the article is to restrict relief under Items 3 and 4 of Group 9 to advertisements placed in the United Kingdom media on behalf of overseas residents, which was the original intention. Services supplied to overseas residents in connection with advertisements placed in overseas media will fall to be considered for zero rating under Items 1, 6 or 7 of Group 9 as appropriate. That fulfils the original intention.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton also referred to the wording of the section relating to holiday accommodation. As originally drafted, holiday accommodation was determined by whatever use a house—or whatever it might be —might be put to over a period of time. Tax would or would not be chargeable on all the lettings of the house, according to its principal use. Those taxes would be due on residential lettings which would otherwise be exempt, if the house was primarily for holiday use, and not due on holiday lettings which would otherwise be taxable if the house was primarily for residential use.
Under the new note, holiday accommodation includes any accommodation advertised or held out as such, and other criteria—the terms of the agreement, the period of occupation and the amount charged—will also need to be taken into consideration, but the Customs and Excise authorities are now satisfied that this distinction can be administered, and it should be much easier for the trade to operate. There is no question of the owner's having to ask the occupants of their intention. If he lets the house as holiday accommodation, bearing in mind the above criteria, his supply will be taxable at the standard rate. This is a better way of tackling the problem, and it is for that reason that we have included it in the order, which, as I said, is something of a catch-all.
This covers all the hon. Member's points and I hope that in the light of that—

Mr. Joel Barnett: In the note, holiday accommodation is said to include any accommodation advertised or held out as such, but if one advertises a house to let

in Blackpool or Bournemouth one does not have to say that it is holiday accommodation. One does not have to hold it out as such, but it would certainly be holiday accommodation. Would it still be subject to VAT?

Mr. Higgins: I had hoped that I had made that point clear. I am saying that, under the note, holiday accommodation includes any accommodation held out or advertised as such, but that other criteria, such as the terms of the agreement, the period of occupation and the amount charged will also need to be taken into consideration, and the Customs authorities are satisfied that this distinction can be administered. We believe that it will be easier for the trade to operate. On that basis, it is something which has been represented to us as a better way of catching this problem, and we think that it will be important.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sorry to trouble the Financial Secretary, but I do not know who is holding it out to him— whether or not it is those concerned— that this would be better. I am not sure what he means when he says that it will be easier to recognise whether it is stated in the agreement that it is holiday accommodation. It certainly would not be stipulated in an agreement that a house or flat was being let for a holiday. The agreement would just say that it was being let. The owner of the house or flat would not care a damn what is stipulated in the agreement so long as he had an agreement under which he received rent. I am not sure that the Financial Secretary, is not being misled by someone into believing that he will catch the people concerned when in fact he will not.

Mr. Higgins: On these occasions we tend to have variations of the same explanation. It is all very simple. Let me try, as I have on former occasions, on other orders, an alternative formula. The amendment clarifies the point on the position of accommodation. It applies tax at the standard rate to the provision of holiday accommodation in houses, flats and caravans by excluding it from the general exemption for interest in land.
Under the legislation as previously drafted, tax fell on the provision of


accommodation—holiday and residential —if it was used wholly or mainly for holiday purposes. This could have led to anomalies which, I say frankly, we did not envisage at the time of drafting. For example, the residential letting of a flat which was wholly or mainly for holiday purposes would be taxable at the standard rate. In view of this, it was decided to confine the tax to holiday accommodation per se, with individual circumstances being taken into account. But, in general, the supply of accommodation advertised or offered as holiday accommodation will be taxable at the standard rate.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I have no desire to press this matter to a vote, but the Financial Secretary has not answered the point. Once he has removed the words "wholly" and "mainly" he cannot know whether or not a house or flat is being let for holiday purposes. He cannot have the faintest idea. Surely what will happen is that holiday accommodation let in houses or flats will be free from VAT. Is not that the position?

Mr. Higgins: No, I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that in debating this matter on an order problems arise about giving an explanation. I have made almost three attempts at explaining it. For the reasons I have mentioned, I do not believe that this is a problem. I think that it will be a workable definition. We believe that it is an improvement. Obviously, in the light of experience we shall need to see how it works.
However, having had discussions and having looked at the various problems that are likely to arise, we believe that this is a better solution than that which I originally commended to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 1) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 324), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

Mr. Higgins: It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we take the other orders— the Value Added Tax (Motor Cycles) Order 1973 and the Value Added Tax (Caravans) Order 1973, together. Perhaps

the House would care to indicate its wishes.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the orders being taken together?

Mr. Higgins: I was merely seeking to establish whether the House wished to take them together. I was proposing to make some preliminary remarks if hon. Members wished. I understand from the assent of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) that it is the wish of the House that they be taken together.
I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Motor Cycles) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 328), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
I understand that the House may discuss at the same time the motion
That the Value Added Tax (Caravans) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 329), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March be approved.
The House will be familiar with the basic point here, because virtually all hon. Members present took part in the previous debates on the orders and discussions of the Bill last year.
The effect of these orders is to extend to used caravans and used motor cycles relief similar to that provided for used cars by Articles 6 and 7 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1972, which the House debated and approved on 1st February.
The provisions are somewhat similar. Under Section. 3(6) and Section 14 of the Finance Act 1972 they provide for the relief of caravans and motor cycles from tax on the full selling price in favour of taxing them on the margin—that is, on the difference between their buying and selling price. The order concerning caravans relates to all caravans, including motor caravans, other than those zero rated under Group 11 of Schedule 4 of the Finance Act 1972. There would be no point in including zero rated caravans in this scheme.
In the previous order we were debating showmen's caravans, including any zero rated. These are now included, in the light of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
The order concerning motor cycles relates to motor bicycles and scooters, whether separately or in combination with a sidecar; any other form of mechanically propelled two-wheeled vehicle which is required to be licensed; and motor tricycles and any other mechanically propelled three-wheeled vehicle capable of accommodating only one person—for example, a disabled person's car.
The Finance Act 1972 included a provision enabling the Treasury, by order, to introduce special schemes for taxing certain secondhand goods on the dealer's margin instead of on their full value. We included these with the secondhand car market primarily in mind, and that order has already been made.
In the case of caravans and motor cycles, the respective trades have based their representations largely on the need for parity of treatment with the secondhand car market where broadly similar conditions apply. The Government have accepted the arguments which have been advanced, which is why I am asking the House to approve the orders tonight.
No doubt hon. Members will wish to raise various matters. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has indicated a desire to do so. Perhaps I may deal with those by replying to the debate.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I agree with the Financial Secretary that we shall have to wait to see how these things work out. However, Article 2(3) of the caravans order says that
In this Order 'caravan' includes a motor caravan but does not include a caravan of a description specified in Group 11 in Schedule 4 to the Finance Act 1972.
There may be some secret explanation. Group 11 in that schedule refers to
Caravans exceeding the limits of size for the time being permitted for the use of trailers on roads.
Note: This item does not include removable contents other than goods of a kind mentioned in Item 3 of Group 8.
Item 3 of Group 8 refers to Section 12(3) of the Act. This all presents quite a maze. There may be a good reason for this labyrinthing approach. I am sure that there is an easy explanation for the differentiation between the types of caravans as itemised in Article 2(3) of the

order. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope to do my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary a service by asking a question which will not require such an intellectual effort on his part as the question posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I hope therefore to give him time to think up an answer to the hon. Member. It is completely illogical that caravans should in some way be lumped in with motor cars and motor cycles. The caravan is not licensed, but the car is. To drive a car it is necessary to pass a test and acquire a licence. To drag a caravan along our West Country roads and obstruct the other motorists requires no licence and no test. Therefore, the caravan has to meet none of the requirements demanded of the car and its driver. Why should it be lumped in with the car?
We have devised a special scheme for the international art market based on London. We have dealt with that matter before, and although some people are still bellyaching about the difficulties which arise, on the whole, it has been put right. I suppose that if a caravan is an antique—a gipsy caravan, painted in delightful colours, for example—it will be dealt with under some other order. But why the caravan which causes a blot on the landscape and an obstruction on the roads should be lumped together with the motor car I cannot imagine. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would give an answer to that before we agree to the order.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be able to answer these simple questions. I therefore have another for him. It applies to other secondhand items. Value added tax is charged on the excess—the profit. If one dealer sells to another goods that are part of their normal stock in trade presumably that would be allowed as an input. How would the vendor keep secret from his purchaser his profit margin? With that simple thought I leave the question to the Financial Secretary.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I shall seek to answer all the points which have been made,


dealing first with that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). I do not wish to engage in the merits or demerits of caravans as such, because that might imply a degree of fiscal discrimination which would almost certainly provoke the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) —concerned as he is with the fiscal system—to launch into a considerable dialogue on the subject.

Mr. Dalyell: Not tonight.

Mr. Higgins: If I provoked the hon. Member I am not sure that would be the case.
The reason for these orders is that we have received representations from the trade. It is true that one does not need a licence to drive a caravan, but it is difficult to do so unless one is driving a car or, alternatively, a caravan that is motorised. I am not sure that it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, suggested, that one does not have to fulfil some of the licensing provisions to get a caravan to move.

Mr. Cooke: Can my hon. Friend refer to a single provision that has to be fulfilled to draw a caravan along the road?

Mr. Higgins: Yes—the same provisions that apply to driving the car that tows the caravan.
That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, who asked why the order does not refer to types of caravans specified in Schedule 4 of the Finance Act 1972. We have already distinguished between two kinds of caravan; the kind of caravan which is a home or a residence, and not normally the kind that one tows around—because even outside the West Country it would be too large to tow conveniently—and that which is not regarded as a home. Because of the general provision in legislation for relief from VAT for housing it was thought appropriate to include large caravans within the scope of relief. We thought that we should also provide for showmen's caravans, although they can be towed on the road, and relief has been given there.
There would be no point in including the Schedule 4 type of caravan in the

provisions for taxing "on the margin", because that type is already zero rated. Therefore, the problem does not arise. Although it may take a little while to follow the legislation from clause to clause, the simple explanation is that which I have given.
There is one point under Article 4(1) of the order in respect of caravans. I say this in answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett). This defines the margin as the difference between the acquisition price and the selling price. The margin will include the cost of repairs or renovations effected between acquisition and sale. Any tax incurred by the seller in such work would be deductible.
The second point relates to how the anonymity of the margin is concealed. This point was in the forefront of people's minds on the question of the secondhand scheme in the arts market. Under Article 3(3) no tax invoices can be issued under the order because the buyer will not need to claim input tax deduction when buying for resale. He will have to resell by virtue of Article 3(1). There will be no problem in terms of disclosure because of the different way in which the scheme operates in terms of secondhand schemes as against the normal working of the credit mechanism where an invoice will be issued and input tax will be deductible at the next stage.
With that explanation, I hope that the House will approve the orders.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman, but he said that input tax would be deducted at the next stage.

Mr. Higgins: In the normal way.

Mr. Barnett: Not in this case? I thought he quoted this case as the pattern. That is all right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Motor Cycles) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 328), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Caravans) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 329), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Higgins.]

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Orders of the Day — MISS ANNE MARIE WILLIAMS (TONSILLECTOMY)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the privilege of raising tonight the whole sad, distressing, indeed tragic circumstances, in which my constituent, Miss Anne Marie Williams, a bright intelligent child of 7 years of age, underwent a tonsillectomy operation at Macclesfield Royal Infirmary in Cheshire on 14th September 1957 and as a consequence found herself paralysed down the whole of her left side—a disability which, unfortunately, has tended to deteriorate over the years.
The House might well ask how a child undergoing an operation that is performed on literally millions of youngsters came to suffer these agonising consequences, and why her parents are obliged to fight for an ex gratia payment when they had a right to legal redress in the courts. Medical opinion to which her parents have had access suggested that the cause of the paralysis might have been an embolism, arising during the course of the operation, which cut off the supply of blood to a section of the brain, thus paralysing the whole of the left side of Anne Marie's body.
From their observations of their child on the afternoon of the day of the operation Anne's parents are convinced that the paralysis is directly related to the operation and did not, as was suggested by one eminent medical authority, arise from some latent condition in the child. Mr. Williams, the father of Anne Marie, asserts that he informed the ward sister of his theory that the child was paralysed as a result of the tonsillectomy on the day of the operation. This was at a time when she was isolated, in the mistaken belief, as it subsequently transpired, that she may have contracted poliomyelitis.
Anne Marie was discharged from the hospital two weeks after the operation. Although suffering from paralysis and disabled the child resumed school and was subsequently able to take up

employment. During this period—this is the central and crucial point in the argument—my constituents insist that they were encouraged to believe that their daughter's condition would improve. Her condition did not improve, and in December 1967 she underwent a brain operation at the Manchester Royal Infirmary in an endeavour to unlock the paralysis.
Regrettably, this operation did not lead to any lasting improvement and her condition worsened. Her father was informed that she would never fully recover. In 1968 he consulted a solicitor about the possibility of legal redress for his daughter's disabilities, only to find that in heeding the advice and encouragement he had received, to the effect that his daughter's disabilities would improve, he had lost, under the provisions of the Limitations Act, any legal rights he may have had because of the time which had elapsed between the operation and the commencement of legal proceedings.
I accept that even had my constituent been able to exercise his legal rights there would have been difficulty in proving negligence but, equally, I submit that it cannot be proved that there was no negligence. The indisputable fact is that the child had a tonsillectomy and found herself terribly and agonisingly disabled as a consequence of that operation.
I note the Department's definition of negligence as explained in the Minister's letter to me of 17th February 1972, when he stated that
the test of negligence is not whether what the doctors did turned out to be right in the event, but whether they acted with the standards of care to be reasonably expected of a professional man.
It could be argued, I submit, that that criterion is far too protective of the medical profession. In circumstances such as these the Department cannot sit back complacently and say that there is no evidence of negligence, because it is a fact that something did go wrong. This child found herself cruelly disabled following the operation and now, as a young lady, faces the years ahead with little hope that her disabilities will improve.
My constituents believe that there is a parallel between the sad circumstances of Anne Marie's operation and the recent case, heard in the High Court before Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson on Monday, 12th


February 1973, concerning a girl of 5 years of age who went into hospital to have her adenoids and tonsils removed and, in the words of the Press reports, came out a vegetable. Again, in that case, as in Anne Marie's, liability for negligence was denied by both the doctors and the Department. Again, the cause of her disability stemmed from a tonsil-lectomy operation. Again, how the child's disability arose remains a mystery, yet in this case the Department faced its moral obligation by paying substantial damages to the parents of the unfortunate child.
All I ask in Anne Marie's case is that the Secretary of State reconsiders the decision not to make an ex gratia payment. Additionally, I hope—and I think the nation would demand—that the Minister will consider referring the circumstances of this and similar cases to the recently established Royal Commission on Civil Liability for Personal Injury, under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson, in order at least to ensure that no other parents will be obliged to experience the distress which, unfortunately, has been the lot of Anne Marie's parents over so many years.
Before concluding, I draw the Minister's attention to two minor yet important features of this case which have perplexed the parents of Anne Marie for many years. Why is it that the name of the consultant who performed the operation has never been revealed? Why should this fact be shrouded in secrecy? Why is it that not one of the Minister's medical advisers on this matter thought fit to examine Ann Marie's medical condition before giving advice to the Minister? Not one person has medically examined Miss Williams before arriving at his advice to the Minister on the case. In a situation when even the medical case history is challenged, why have those concerned based their judgments wholly on that case history, without examining the girl or even interviewing her parents?
In my view, this remarkable young lady has borne her disabilities with great fortitude. As I have watched her dragging her paralysed leg I have found the wretched circumstances in her case and the award of an ex gratia payment dragging at my conscience. I hope that the case I have outlined will impress itself on the conscience of the Under-Secretary of State and on those who, I believe,

have a moral obligation to see that this young lady receives the justice she has been denied for so long.

10.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) not only on securing this Adjournment debate but also on the persistence and deep sense of personal commitment to the case of Miss Williams which he has shown over a substantial period of time.
Perhaps I should set the background to the debate by making a reference to the admissibility, in principle, of an ex gratia payment. We make ex gratia payments only where a normal remedy of legal action is, for one reason or another, not available. In this case it is too late to claim within the period allowed by the Limitation Acts, and therefore we start the debate against the background that, prima facie, it is possible to consider whether an ex gratia payment would be appropriate. It is now the only sort of payment which would be feasible in any circumstances.
The main question is whether there was proof of professional negligence which could have led to a successful claim if made in time. This is bound to be the guiding principle which the Department observes when it considers the question of ex gratia payments. I want to say something about the concept of negligence, since the hon. Gentleman has quoted from the earlier letter I sent to him. It is germane to the subject.
A doctor owes a patient a duty to use care, knowledge and skill in administering treatment. The standard of care and skill which the law requires is that of the ordinary, competent medical practitioner exercising the ordinary degree of professional skill. A doctor against whom negligence is alleged can clear himself— and I do not think this is really a very privileged position—-if he can show that he acted within general and approved practice—that is, general and approved practice at the time when the alleged negligence occurred.
I turn now to the sad details of Miss William's tragic case. She was found to be suffering from partial paralysis after a tonsillectomy operation in 1957, when


she was 7 years old. Possible explanations have been put forward but no conclusive proof of what caused paralysis has been shown. At one stage, it was thought that the cause could be either poliomyelitis or post-operative embolism, but tests enabled poliomyelitis, at least, to be discounted as a factor. A later suggestion was that the condition might have been latent, and manifested itself only after the operation.
Whatever the cause, there was general agreement among all medical staff who examined Miss Williams or reviewed her case that there was no irregular or untoward episode in the operation or in the administration of anaesthesia, or any evidence of negligence.
In 1968, Mr. Williams consulted solicitors about the possibility of taking legal action against the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. Case notes were supplied to his doctor. I understand that counsel's opinion, based on the doctor's report was, again, that there was no evidence of negligence.
Two independent consultants also expressed opinions, at the hospital's request. One said that in his view paralysis was not associated with the tonsillectomy. The other, a professor of child health, said that in his view there had been no negligence. Therefore, if legal proceedings had been taken in time it seems certain that they would have had little chance of success.
I draw a distinction between the case we are here discussing and the second case which the hon. Member mentioned, of a child in a not dissimilar set of circumstances. In that case I understand that counsel's advice was that negligence might have been proved if the case had proceeded through the High Court—which was one reason why it was settled out of court. That is the fundamental difference between the two cases, and in Miss William's case all the evidence that I have heard is that negligence was not a serious factor.
A full investigation was carried out by my Department when the possibility of making an ex gratia payment was raised by the hon. Member in November 1971. The Department's medical officers obtained, in confidence, the case notes for the original operation and those for the

remedial operation carried out in 1967, in an attempt to reduce the disability. They also had a report from the surgeon who carried out the second operation. Was it this surgeon whose name the hon. Member asked for?

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The original surgeon.

Mr. Alison: I take the point. 1 think the hon. Member had not brought this to my notice but I will happily make available to the hon. Member the name of the surgeon in the first case and will advise him if it is thought proper to give further publicity to this. I will take this up with the hon. Member later, if I may, in correspondence.
My Department's medical officers also had a report from the surgeon who carried out the second operation. Like others, previously, he had been unable to determine the precise cause of the disability. After considering all the information supplied, the Department's medical officers concluded that, in all the circumstances, there was no evidence of negligence.
I understand that Mr. Williams feels that my Department should have arranged for a physical examination of of his daughter to establish the direct cause of paralysis. My Department's medical officers have advised me that there is virtually no chance of establishing the cause 15 years later, in a case where original examinations and those before the second operation failed to lay it bare. My medical officers felt that such an examination could not have assisted in advising on the case, and would only have raised hopes unjustifiably, which we were anxious not to do.
Miss Williams's case was referred by the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman—who investigated the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in refusing to authorise an ex gratia payment. He declared himself satisfied that the decision had been made without maladministration, and made it clear that he did not question it.
When the matter was raised again, my Department's medical officers once more reviewed the information received from the hospital where the tonsillectomy took place, but remained of the opinion that


there was no evidence of negligence. They also considered the hon. Member's contention that if a latent condition caused the paralysis, tests should have been carried out before the first operation in 1957 to establish whether or not the patient was likely to be subject to such a condition. My medical officers have pointed out that a latent condition was suggested only as a possibility, and advised that paralysis was not a condition which could have been anticipated even if attempts had been made to do so. No tests before the operation could have guarded against paralysis. I must, therefore, regretfully confirm that my right hon. Friend and I can find no grounds for directing the hospital board to make an ex gratia payment in this case.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In a situation where;—with the greatest good will—there are so many uncertainties as to exactly what happened during this operation, is it unreasonable to ask the Minister and the Department to give the benefit of the doubt to the young lady who has suffered so much as a consequence of the operation?

Mr. Alison: It is desperately tempting to me to respond in the vein in which the hon. Gentleman has put forward the proposal, but I am sure he understands that the closer one gets to legal liability the easier it is to consider ex gratia payments. An ex gratia payment is properly a substitute for legal liability which has only just been missed. The further one gets away from legal liability, the more one gets into the area of an unpredictable, chance, haphazard, indeterminate event, to which, alas, the hospital world is susceptible owing to the nature of its work. If we concede the case of Miss Williams, which so clearly involves misfortune and mischance, for which no negligence can be established and for which no legal liability arises, we open the door to hundreds or even thousands of similar cases.

Mr. Morris: The Minister will be aware that the whole question of negligence was challenged in the thalidomide tragedy.

Mr. Alison: That goes much wider than this case. It would hardly be proper for me to comment on that in too great

detail, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the thalidomide case had not proceeded through the High Court, and that offers to settle out of court had been made, I imagine—speaking as a layman, and not under advice—precisely because those who had or might have had liability thought that they were running close to the possibility of legal liability and therefore preferred to settle privately. We do not find ourselves in that situation in this case, where we are too far away from the possibility of negligence having arisen for it to be possible to consider an ex gratia payment—anxious though we would be to try to help in any way we can—for fear of the floodgate that would be opened for similar tragedies which occur in the context of hospital-isation, operations, and so on, where unpredictable and unpreventable accidents occur in the nature of the inexact though marvellous art of medical science.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look at individual cases with the greatest care and, I hope, compassion. Had there been grounds to authorise the making of an ex gratia payment, my right hon. Friend and I would have been more than delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman as generously as he has identified himself with Miss Williams's needs, but in the circumstances my right hon. Friend had to conclude that such a payment would not be appropriate in this case and would have far-reaching implications on many similar cases.
The House will know that there are many people who have developed disability, where there is no evidence that medical negligence occurred, with no entitlement to compensation. I am advised that this general question falls within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Civil Liberty and Compensation for Personal Injury, under Lord Pearson's chairmanship. The commission will be starting work shortly, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made it clear that its recommendations cannot be retrospective. I have to say, therefore, with great regret, that its findings can have no bearing on Anne Marie's case.
As always following these debates, 1 shall read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said, and what I have said, as soon as it is in print. I reconfirm to the hon. Gentleman our desire to do all that


we could to help in this case. But on the facts that he has presented, and on which I have been advised, we could not hold out any hope of finding grounds for an ex gratia payment.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I want to raise one matter before the hon. Gentleman sits down. Will he accept my invitation, if he cannot accept my case, to refer this case, along with others, to the Royal Commission in order that other parents will not suffer as the parents of Anne Marie have?

Mr. Alison: Nothing that I could do or say, let alone would wish to do or say, could possibly prevent the hon. Gentleman, in the full scope of his parliamentary powers as the Member for a distinguished constituency, from doing everything possible to give evidence about this sort of case to the authorities involved in the review. I hope that he will be successful in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.